Slashdot Mirror


State Lawmaker Wants To Ban Anonymous Posting Online

bfwebster writes "According to a local news article from last week, Kentucky state lawmaker Tim Couch wants to ban anonymous posting on the internet in order to 'cut down on online bullying', which he says has been 'a particular problem in eastern Kentucky.' His bill would require posters to register with their real names and e-mail addresses under threat of fines. Looks like another battle in the right for anonymous free speech."

79 of 471 comments (clear)

  1. how about passing laws that have some... by going_the_2Rpi_way · · Score: 4, Insightful

    hope in hell of being enforced, or are at the very least enforceable.

    1. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is that seriously the main flaw you find with this law? Would you rather they come up with a free-speech-restricting law that's more enforcable?

    2. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, that isn't anyone's main flaw. But it should be mandatory that these lawmakers should have at least enough of a clue to determine if what they are proposing is even possible before they start drafting legislation.

      This makes as much sense as drafting a law making it illegal for it to rain on Thursdays. The frightening part is that the bozo drafting the law doesn't see why it's a problem.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    3. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by GarryFre · · Score: 3, Informative

      We all knew the names of bullies at school. It didn't stop them. Take one look at Uselessnet and you see bullying from folks who give out their names, emails and all kind of stuff. Stupid people (bullies) stand by their stupidity.

      --
      www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
    4. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by trolltalk.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      His bill would require posters to register with their real names and e-mail addresses under threat of fines

      All they have to do is import the technology from China - the "other place" that wants to do the same thing ...

      Please remind me again what's the difference between the "land of the free" and "dirty commie bastards".

    5. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Represntative [sic] Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge."

      Couch went on to acknowledge that Space is big, that there are quite a few people in China, that antidisestablishmentarianism is a long word, and that John McCain is not very young.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

      -Ayn Rand

      ...

      Is that seriously the main flaw you find with this law?

      Brian Gordon

      Yes.

    7. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Among the larger financial supporters of the coalition against drugs in america

      Tobacco Companies
      Alcohol Companies
      Private Prison Companies

      We incarcerate more people than china.
      We strip away a very particular group of people's voting rights through selective drug law enforcement.
      We have double the drug use of Amsterdam (where drug use is legal).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    8. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Tsiangkun · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the land of the free, companies own the people,that make the money, that is used to influence the government. The elite are international banksters, and the government is a puppet executing their wishes while protecting their names and faces.

      In dirty commie strongholds, governments own the people, that run the companies, that makes the money, that funds the government. The elite are the government, and since everyone knows who is really in charge, revolution is more attainable and more likely.

    9. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Laws that can only be enforced selectively are simply another form of tyranny. (ie: dominance through threat of punishment and violence)

      That is yet another and separate reason it should not pass, in addition the First Amendment issues.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    10. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please remind me again what's the difference between the "land of the free" and "dirty commie bastards".

      Easy, the land of he free has Moms Apple pPie.
      (Now available from a frozen food isle near you..).

      Seriously though, the main difference is that while the US government might get angry at you, or take you to court over something you said, they won't have you taken away in the middle of the night and executed. That's a biggie, trust me on this.

      I was going to add that you wouldn't be imprisoned for life without trial, but Guantanamo bay is giving me pause for thought. That's likely a special case, after all, it is your current war type thing that's caused that.

    11. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by penguin_dance · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it's IMPOSSIBLE to find everyone who is illegally trading music. It's IMPOSSIBLE to stop every speeder. But they DO manage bringing charges against SOME who do. Never blow off a proposed law just because it's difficult to enforce. Because as stupid as the law is, it WILL net some poor saps who will either have to just up and pay the fines or have the funds to take it to the supreme court.

      Laws like this need to be nipped in the bud. BEFORE they get passed so we don't have to spend the $$ to fight them back out of existence. This law is draconian and clearly unconstitutional--obviously this guy or one of his big donors has their panties in a wad over something said anonymously about them and it just frosts them that they can't find out who it is.

      And lawmakers like this one need to be nipped in the bud and tossed out of office.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    12. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "that there are quite a few people in China"

      which is quite apt, as China is another country that intends to ban anonymous posting online, with the difference that they actually have the manpower to enforce it.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    13. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Quick, while we still can!

      I drink your milkshake! LOLCATS!11 All your base belong to us! uh, uh... Ron Paul for Prezedent!

    14. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Simple, they'd say, it's the ISP's responsibility ;)

    15. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that it is off-topic (tho it was technically a tangent to the Ayn Rand comment) but not intended as flamebait.

      I just recently saw a movie on the drug war and it was pretty upsetting (including fairly substantial and substantiated evidence) that the CIA under reagan (who I voted for) ran cocaine into america to support their revolution in central america.

      The bits about private prisons was very disturbing. I've known for quite a while that we imprison people in the US at a higher rate than the rest of the world.

      But to see an LA policeman relating how the CIA contacted him to ignore selected drug lords in an open public meetings (and to see the CIA director's obvious distress) was pretty shocking to me so I guess it was waiting to spew out somewhere.

      It pulled no punches-- drug users were shocking dregs in some cases. But so are extreme alcohol and tobacco users.

      We have so many bad laws related to this area- and now that they are tying "any drug sales == support for terror" they are able to ignore civil rights at increasing levels.

      Then you get some cheesehead like this guy wanting to ban the equivalent of posting anonymous hand bills and it is extremely irritating.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    16. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This completely asinine anti-Anonymous law is not a new trend in our government. In the US we have been more than willing to repeatedly try bad ideas as long as the intentions fit some vague Judeo-Christian moral standard (or if there's money to be made). Fear also works well enough. Fear of the anarchists, and then the communists, and then the terrorists, and then the "cyber bullies". Fear for our children. Fear of each other. Fear of freedom, of responsibility.

      Look at what happened with America's failed experiment to outlaw alcohol. What did we get? A thriving underground drug culture and a massive new revenue source for organized crime. We've been making the same mistake for 70 plus years only this time we seem content to just let things continue in this broken dysfunctional state. Drug use causes harm, but prohibition is worse.

      But, money is being made on all sides of the "War on drugs" so no one in power really wants it to end.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    17. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But it should be mandatory that these lawmakers should have at least enough of a clue to determine if what they are proposing is even possible before they start drafting legislation.


      The question of whether something is within the capabilities of the state to enforce is (supposed) to be addressed by the administration's (governor's) veto power. If a legislative body passes a bill that they cannot reasonably implement, they have that chance to make their point.


      Unfortunately, there is no requirement that a bill be vetted for its constitutionality by the courts. Once passed into law, the courts cannot consider it until a case is brought before a court empowered to make such a decision. That means: someone has to violate the law and then spend years and millions of dollars (occasionally contributed by advocacy organizations) to see the case through the requisite trial and appeals.


      I suspect that some legislators know this and just submit their bills in the hope that nobody will have the balls to stand up for their rights.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    18. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by robertjw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, it' might be the main flaw. The major problem I have with these kinds of laws aren't IF they are enforcable, but how much the enforcement will cost and who will pay for it.

      An initiative like this will cost millions if not billions of dollars. It would probably be more effective to just set up a victims fund and pay for counseling for anyone who gets bullied. We waste so much money in this country on ridiculous activities like this, when we could be housing the homeless, educating our kids, or researching cures for cancer.

      It should not only be mandatory that lawmakers have a clue about feasibility, but every bill that's passed should have a study done as to the ultimate costs and the methods of funding the new law. If the money isn't in the budget the lawmakers can't pass the bill. If the lawmakers don't have enough money to conduct an adequate study, the bill also shouldn't be passed.

    19. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An unenforceable law, in my eyes, is one which is almost universially broken as a matter of the course of life. For relevant current laws, see most traffic regulations. These are outwardly passed to provide a measure of saftey but routinely are selectively enforced as a revenue stream due to the inability of the government to provide sufficent manpower to enforce the rules universially.

      The fact that the law itself would be dead in the water as being in conflict with the Bill of Rights is a concern, but not the primary one. That issue is readily resolveable through the normal legal processes. Our legal system has, to my satisfaction at least, shown the ability to police itself that far at least.

      The issue that lawmakers put forward suggested laws which (regarless of their constitutionality) have no real means of universal enforcement is of more concern because that is directly what Ayn's quote is warning of. Passing of laws which, for whatever the intent was, work to make all men criminals.

      The point of her quote isn't that if everyone breaks the law, everyone goes to jail. It's that if everyone breaks the law, the government will selectively arrest just those who cause a problem for 'them'.

    20. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by alexgieg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If we're going to debate fictional, unenforceable laws, I'd prefer to debate the ones Asimov proposed.
      Well, here in Brazil it isn't a fictional law. Anonymity is forbidden by our Constitution, no less. On the other hand, yes, it remains completely unenforceable. No one gives a damn and everyone, everywhere, creates anonymous logins all the time. :-)
      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    21. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Simple, they'd say, it's the ISP's responsibility ;)

      First off, I have no idea why this got modded to -1 because that's exactly what they'll most likely do.

      The problem is, how would an ISP manage this with any degree of certainty? What is to stop me from logging in to Slashdot using Tor and giving any contact info I wish?

      And let's say I do bully someone and it goes to court. Taco could wind up paying thousands in fines for it. So let's say that happens and he decided to get tough and crack down on false IDs.

      How do you do it?

      The answer is the same one you'd give if you were trying to comply to the "no rain on Thursdays" law. You can't.

      So this is a law that is impossible to comply with, even if you wanted to in the first place. That's why it's a bad idea. Well that, and the whole "right to privacy" thing, which is another discussion.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    22. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "In the US we have been more than willing to repeatedly try bad ideas as long as the intentions fit some vague Judeo-Christian moral standard (or if there's money to be made)."

      As a "Judeo-Christian" ethical person, I take exception to this vile screed designed to illicit the same kind of "fear" that he rails against later on ... "Fear for our children. Fear of each other. Fear of freedom, of responsibility."

      One of the biggest reasons I'm what I am today is founded upon the notion that MAN cannot rule himself, let alone other men, without eventually being corrupted. I happen to be very LIBERTARIAN in my views because I realize this very thought. And when the state can convict, and execute someone completely innocent (if you buy the story), then they can do it to anyone, which is why I'm against the death penalty.

      And I happen to agree with your point of view on legalization of drugs and alcohol, it is none of the state's business. That, and if we taxed the crap out of sin (keeping it legal, and controlled) we'd have all the money needed to fund all the stupid programs you want.

      Also one cannot have a war against chairs, what makes one think we can have one against another inanimate object (drugs, terror, poverty etc).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    23. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by mrops · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have just discussed this with my peers.

      Consensus is that we should pass the law to ban Internet altogether.

    24. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >The major problem I have with these kinds of laws aren't IF they are enforcable, but how much the enforcement will cost and who will pay for it.

      So you totally miss the part about it being illegal to establish a prior restraint on free speech, or for government
      to introduce a "chilling effect" on what is otherwise a First Amendment protected activity.

      This legislation would be fought from so many different angles, it's almost amusing.

      Conservatives will not want to be forced to reveal their identities when speaking on political forums.
      Liberals will not want their right to speak in opposition to government policy.

      Consider what happens when people from the health professions start to talk about the effect on things like
      support forums for victims of sexual assault, or when representatives of the law enforcement community bring
      up the threat that is posed when anonymous reporting of crimes is suppressed.

      How will the stock traders react when they discover they can't be anonymous on the message boards?

      There are so many people that would oppose this legislation, it cuts through practically every walk of life.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    25. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by robertjw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nah, they'll still pass all sorts of crazy, expensive, and worthless laws only then they'll all have tax increase riders attached.

      Actually, the probably wouldn't. The one thing the public cares about, and politicians are afraid of, is raising taxes. Lawmakers will go out of their way to avoid having anything that looks like a tax increase in their record. That's why the country just borrows trillions of dollars, steals from the social security funds, . If they raised taxes to cover all costs of Iraq, the War on Drugs, and whatever else, there would be riots in the streets. You need to go back and play some civ, AOE, Empire Earth or sim city. People get PISSED when you raise taxes.

    26. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by shmlco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're assuming that they're thinking that far ahead. How about just announcing a new law banning some "scary" or unpopular practice and getting free publicity?

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    27. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The other option is to refuse to business in Kentucky.

      GeoIP to prevent anyone from Kentucky from buying a subscription, anyone?

    28. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by lupine · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a resident of Wisconsin I would like to point out that this idiot is from Kentucky. So you can call him a bluegrasshead or say that he has cheese for brains, but do not call him a cheesehead.

      Representative Tim Couch Bio Highlights:
      Church of God
      Hazard Community College
      NRA. Natl Wild Turkey Federation
      Hyden Masonic Lodge 664

    29. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Informative

      If they raised taxes to cover all costs of Iraq, the War on Drugs, and whatever else, there would be riots in the streets. You need to go back and play some civ, AOE, Empire Earth or sim city. People get PISSED when you raise taxes Well, according to the Laffer Curve, Raising taxes would give us LESS money to pay for things like Iraq, War on Drugs and whatever else. The government has been pulling in record receipts since Bush's tax cuts. Sorry, but raising taxes slows the economy and ends up with less tax revenue.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    30. Re:how about passing laws that have some... by chgros · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you look at your link, it says that the point where revenue starts to go down is probably around 80% tax.
      I think we can both agree we're still pretty far from this.

  2. What we should ban... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We should ban stupid politicians. Unfortunately, how do you ban ignorance?

    1. Re:What we should ban... by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Funny

      >We should ban stupid politicians. Unfortunately, how do you ban ignorance?

      In this case, you have other, better educated politicians talk to the stupid ones
      about things like equal protection, or chilling effects on free speech. You know,
      the stuff the ignorance of which has ended the careers of so many other stupid politicians.

      On the other hand, the opinion of a single lawmaker in a state assembly has about the same merit as that of one slashdot poster. They say stupid stuff all the time and nothing comes of it.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:What we should ban... by gearloos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "You Cant Fix Stupid"

      --
      "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
    3. Re:What we should ban... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Funny

      But apparently you can elect them to high office. :-D

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:What we should ban... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Funny

      I just realized something even more profound.

      You can't outlaw stupid, because then who would we put into office?!?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Ahh, the smell of burning karma by illegibledotorg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tim Couch, wants to ban anonymous posting on the internet in order to 'cut down on online bullying', which he says has been 'a particular problem in eastern Kentucky.'
    Evidently, both computer owners in Eastern Kentucky are upset at each other.
  4. Informal Title by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Like the Mickey Mouse Act, this bill has the informal title of "Tim Couch's 14 Year Old Daughter Just Clicked on a Goatse Link Bill."

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Informal Title by erlenic · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm willing to bet that the most appropriate title would be the "Tim Couch got his feeling hurt by an online troll Bill".

      He claims that this is to prevent cyber-bullying (I hate that term) in our schools, but he probably wants to get revenge on the owner of kyvotes.org. It's a website that lists all the bills being debated in the legislature, and gives people the ability to comment on those bills. Considering the extreme ignorance of almost all of our legislators, they get ripped pretty badly. Here's the discussion for this bill: http://www.kentuckyvotes.org/2008-HB-775

  5. Anonymously post your comments to Rep. Couch by HohlerMann · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Send your anonymous comments to Rep. Tim Couch using his official form at http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Mailform/H090.htm

  6. Please... by SameBrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're getting bullied online by anonymous people and taking it seriously, then your parents messed up big time somewhere along the way. I grew up with the internet, and was constantly harassed by anonymous idiots. I just knew better than to take them seriously, since they are SOME IDIOT ON THE INTERNET!!!!!1!!1!!!!lim(x->0)[sin(x)/x]. I'm getting really sick and tired of parents trying to use the legal system to protect their kids. The idea is that the legal system protects kids from things they don't understand. I'm pretty sure that the average child understands that some anonymous person on the internet cannot harm them and that they are probably just some other stupid kid. I wish parents would start actually raising their kids. My parents did a great job, and it was their first time.

    1. Re:Please... by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Educate the child to BE anonymous If they are anonymous online noone can hurt them there.

  7. OK, Arrest me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just figure out who I am so you can find me.

  8. Not A Solution by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you don't want to be bullied online, stay offline.

    And if you think any country's laws - including the USA's - can regulate the world-wide Internet, you're dreaming. All this law would accomplish is to cause the creation of anonymous blogging centers in countries with stricter privacy laws.

    And by the way, hasn't the Supreme Court already said that you have a right to be anonymous online?

    The only people who would benefit from this are the individuals, corporations, and politicians seeking to quash dissent by outing, and then suing, those who post unflattering comments, no matter how truthful. And those aren't the people I want to be helping out.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  9. Ummm... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't SCOTUS already rule that anonymous speech is protected?

    Ah yes, here we go: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

    Yet another law just waiting to be struck down, and it took five seconds on Google to demonstrate why.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Ummm... by Stanislav_J · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't SCOTUS already rule that anonymous speech is protected? Ah yes, here we go: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity. Yet another law just waiting to be struck down, and it took five seconds on Google to demonstrate why.

      Ah, so SCOTUS decisions are written in stone, are they? If that were true, we would still be counting African-Americans as 3/5 of a person. Courts change, attitudes change, decisions that seemed immutable get overturned or reversed or gutted. Don't think it can't happen. If a liberal or centrist justice dies, and Bush gets one more appointment, we may have a Court that will one day declare the Constitution itself "unconstitutional..."

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    2. Re:Ummm... by Spasemunki · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 3/5ths compromise wasn't a Supreme Court decision, it was made at the Philadelphia Constitutional convention. And while SC decisions can be revisited, the court is very, very wary of overturning earlier decisions without a very big change in the culture; the justices are on the whole a very conservative body, and are typically unwilling to directory contradict the reasoning of an earlier justice unless there is either a marked flaw in the decision (as in logical fallacy) or there's been a big change in the country (Plessy v. Vergusson vs. Brown v. BOE). Since the privacy decision that the EFF cites was made in 1995, the odds of the Supremes (much less the Four Tops, or the Shirelles) revisiting the decision seems very slim. Particularly over some goofy law that (I believe) an ex-University of Kentucky quarter back made up on his weekend off because people were calling him names on the intertubes,

  10. Won't pass by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bills like this don't get anywhere in America. Unless he can come up with some religious reason to deny anonymous postings, there won't be any support from his constituency. You start messing with the first or second amendment in Kentucky and it's going to be an uphill battle.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  11. Cut down on bullying.. by StarfishOne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    like in real life where most bullies know their names of their victims. No one is bullied in real life as we all know! No one is being bullied even though teachers and parents are fully aware of it!

    So let's find some thing (internet) to yell about because you don't like it (because you cannot control it)

  12. Great Idea! by Tim+Couch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because nobody would ever think of giving false information when they register, right?
    - "Tim"

  13. Re:Fscking no-nothing inbred hicks by graveyhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ooh, flamebait, fun! It's Monday after the clock change, so I'll entertain myself while my brain awakes.

    First of all, you spelled "know" incorrectly.

    Secondly, where did anyone mention religion? I must've missed that.

    Thirdly, do you have to use profanity? I mean I just sent Rep. ClueStick an email on his form, and was perfectly polite in telling him where to stick his bill :-P

    --
    std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
  14. Re:How by cyclopropene · · Score: 2, Informative

    Obvious comment: How do you fine someone you can't identify? By reading the article?

    If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.
    --
    Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
  15. It's not you he wants... by michaelwigle · · Score: 2, Informative
    That's just another twist in this proposed law.

    If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that. It's the site operators he's going after. Here's hoping /. has a big slush fund. Or will we just not be allowed to post AC anymore? I wish writing and trying to pass unenforcable, not to mention unconstitutional, laws wasn't a pass-time activity for some of our elected officials.
    1. Re:It's not you he wants... by Lockejaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure the result would really just be to drive a lot of web hosts out of Kentucky.

      --
      (IANAL)
  16. Let's see if I have this straight by taustin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We need to ban anonymous posting to the internet because bullies who post anonymously are hard to track down.

    So we'll make them register their names and email addresses with the state.

    But they can get literally thousands of email address, for free, from services that aren't subject to our state's (or even country's) laws, and there is no mechanism even possible to police what email address or name they actually use, so they can continue to post anonymously.

    And even though we can't track down anonymouse cyber bullies now, we'll be able to later, when they're not using the name or email address they registered with the state.

    In addition to having no effect whatsoever, we will give them a legal defense of "Well, that's not my name or email adress! I registered those with the state, just like the law requires, so how could it be me?"

    This doesn't even look like an attempt to "do something." In fact, it looks more like an attempt to protect bullies than punish them.

  17. Yes by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A law that isn't enforceable is totally pointless. If it is a legit, enforceable law, then you can debate if it is a good one or not, but an unenforceable law is just the height of stupidity and a waste of time. I mean we could pass a law saying the sun needs to be cooler, but there is fuck all we can do to make that happen, so it would be a waste of time.

    I'm not saying I agree with laws that are restricting speech, but at least if it was a law that was enforceable then there could be a point to it. You could debate if it was a good idea or not, if the tradeoff was worth it. Here, it is just a fucking waste of time since regardless of any merits, it just won't work.

    1. Re:Yes by jav1231 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "A law that isn't enforceable is totally pointless"

      Not entirely. You're assuming the intent is to actually enforce law. Many such laws are passed everyday and are designed simply to foster a sense of accomplishment and augment power. Most are then marketed as necessary "for the safety of our children." When election time comes guess who the vast unwashed are going to vote for?

    2. Re:Yes by jc42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A law that isn't enforceable is totally pointless.

      That's not true at all. Such laws are used all the time. They come in very handy if there's someone you want to harrass. Hold them in jail for a day or three, then say "Sorry, it looks like we can't actually try you in this jurisdiction for violating that law. Have a nice day", and escort them out to the street. Where they're promptly arrested again, if the local authorities so wish.

      The common term is "nuisance law", and they're almost universal. It's very difficult to get a law annulled unless someone is actually charged and tried for violating it.

      A similar principle applies to "violating a suspect's rights". In a town where I once lived, there was a protest in which a lot of people were arrested and held in the town jail overnight. They were denied any communication, not even the standard "one call to your lawyer". The next day they were all released. The explanation was simple: The local authorities didn't want to take anyone to court; that would have been a huge political (and probably legal) disaster for them. Since the arrestees rights had been violated, the police couldn't be forced by local officials to press charges. As for the arrestees pressing charges, the police's response was simple: "Who are you? We have no record that you've ever been in this town before. Can you prove you were here and were arrested?"

      I knew a bunch of people who learned a valuable lesson that day about how the legal system actually works. (I was just an onlooker, but I knew a number of the people involved. If asked, I could have testified that they'd been in town that day, but I couldn't testify that I'd personally seen any of them arrested. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    3. Re:Yes by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only that, but when you pass unenforceable laws, you tend to devalue laws in general.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  18. Scientology by pryoplasm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could this have any correlation to the protests against scientology? Perhaps in response to the protest on the 15th?

    --
    Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who live by the gun...
  19. Read the rest of the article by turtledawn · · Score: 3, Informative

    This bill is something the senator introduced at the request of his constituents, and would apply only to Kentucky residents. The way he was quoted in the original story makes it clear that he thinks it's hairbrained, unlikely to pass, sure to be shot down if it is, and he won't vote for it. Don't go beating up on the guy for trying to appease his constituency- for all I know, one of them is my grandmother-in-law, and I've certainly said any number of things to get her to stop pestering me.

    (I love you Sandra, but you're not the most computer savvy individual)

    --
    Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    1. Re:Read the rest of the article by turtledawn · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/338489.html

      This was the original story. Replying to myself, yeah I know.. but I didn't have the link yet for my prior post.

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
  20. Message to the Commonwealth of Kentucky by erlehmann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hello, Lawmakers of Kentucky. We are Anonymous.

    Over the years, we have been watching you. Your campaigns of misinformation; suppression of dissent; your litigious nature, all of these things have caught our eye. With the leakage of your latest propaganda video into mainstream circulation, the extent of your malign influence over those who trust you, who call you leader, has been made clear to us. Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind -- for the laughs -- we shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the State of Kentucky in its present form. We acknowledge you as a serious opponent, and we are prepared for a long, long campaign. You will not prevail forever against the angry masses of the body politic. Your methods, hypocrisy, and the artlessness of your organization have sounded its death knell.

    You cannot hide; we are everywhere.

    We cannot die; we are forever. We're getting bigger every day--and solely by the force of our ideas, malicious and hostile as they often are. If you want another name for your opponent, then call us Legion, for we are many.

    Yet for all that we are not as monstrous as you are; still our methods are a parallel to your own. Doubtless you will use the Anon's actions as an example of the persecution you have so long warned your followers would come; this is acceptable. In fact, it is encouraged. We are your SPs.

    Gradually as we merge our pulse with that of your "State", the suppression of your followers will become increasingly difficult to maintain. Believers will wake, and see that salvation has no price. They will know that the stress, the frustration that they feel is not something that may be blamed upon Anonymous. No -- they will see that it stems from a source far closer to each. Yes, we are SPs. But the sum of suppression we could ever muster is eclipsed by that of the RTC.

    Knowledge is free.

    We are Anonymous.

    We are Legion.

    We do not forgive.

    We do not forget.

    Expect us.

  21. Knowing the perversity of /. readers... by Grendel70 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I almost expected this entire topic to be filled with nothing but AC posts.

    --
    Perhaps you mean a different thing than I do when you say "science."
  22. This is bad for whistle blowers who some times.... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is bad for whistle blowers who some times don't want to say there name and this is also bad for things like crime stoppers where some times saying your name can get you killed.

  23. You forgot.... by iknownuttin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Unless he can come up with some religious reason to deny anonymous postings, there won't be any support from his constituency.

    You forgot the "Think of the Children" crowd. Making anonymous postings illegal will make it "easier" to catch the predators after your children!

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
  24. Re:correction . . . by PawNtheSandman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since when has Kentucky had internet access?

  25. Re:Hmmm ... by qortra · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow, you really picked the wrong forum to make that joke.

  26. hilarious by jgarra23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That'll be amusing when he tries to get this passed. I'd love to see this bill get laughed at when he is informed that it has virtually no enforceable methods and that international users will just see this as another ignorant "Stupid American" method of trying to control what it cannot.

    Oh, before anyone mods me as flamebait (which the zealots love to do) I'm a patriotic American and in case you haven't heard about something called The Monroe Doctrine...

  27. Enforceability, schmenforceability... by Prison+Rodeo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The question is not whether or not the law is enforceable.

    The question is whether this bill will help Rep. Couch get reelected in his little corner of Kentucky come November.

    (I'd bet $0.11 it does).

    2008 is an election year. Expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing, coming soon to a legislature near you.

  28. Won't SOMEBODY think of the children! by Urd.Yggdrasil · · Score: 2, Funny

    Use their own tactics against them: If anonymous posting is illegal, then children will have to post their full names whenever they send a communication on the internet, they're all sure to get molested!

  29. Re:I have a serious question abou that by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >Why the hell doesn't someone sue one of these idiots for breach of trust?

    Because they face re-election every few years. If they are supported by their constituents,
    they return to office. If lawmakers were subject to legal threats every time they proposed
    something, there would be so much abuse that would make today's level of corruption look like
    child's play.

    Consider that a state assemblyman represents a rather limited group of constituents, and is
    a pretty small voice in a pretty big crowd. He is small potatoes even by Kentucky standards,
    representing a county of about 25,000 population, under 30 percent of them high schoolgraduates,
    where the average income is $16,000 and the average home value under $10,000.

    Think about these numbers, and then ask yourself how much influence you think Rep. Tim Couch has,
    and how likely it is for this bill to get past committee.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  30. Re:Offtopic -- personal request! by tattood · · Score: 2, Informative

    People, all drugs are not legal in Amsterdam. Only Marijuana and hash are legal, and they are very tightly controlled by the government. They control how many shops are allowed to sell it, and where they are placed. Companies that are licensed to sell weed and hash are also limited to 30 grams on hand at any one time.

    They also make a very distinct differentiation between "hard" and "soft" drugs. Weed and hash are considered soft drugs, while cocaine and heroine are hard drugs, and are definitely illegal. But, the Dutch government does make a big attempt to help people with drug problems, including giving free methadone to the hardcore junkies, in the attempts to help them clean up.

    And regarding the comment about number of drug addicts in Amsterdam compared to the U.S., the Netherlands has about 16 million people. U.S. has about 300 million. Of course with that many more people, there is going to be a larger number of drug addicted people.

    --
    WTB [sig], PST!!!
  31. Root of the Problem by pleappleappleap · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why don't we just get to the root of the problem and ban people? If you are a person, you are punishable by death.

    All sorts of problems would just "go away".

  32. I'm from Kentucky... by FSWKU · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ... and mindless drivel like this is what gives our state a bad name. Lexington/Frankfort is FULL of clueless idiots who have no sense of reality, but this takes the cake. My favorite part?

    Represntative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge.
    A challenge? If by challenge, he means completely IMPOSSIBLE and a giant waste of taxpayer funds, then yes.

    I encourage everyone to contact Mr. Couch and let him know how unfeasable and insulting this idea is. That measn well-thought and well-written messages, not /b/-tard screaming. If any of you live in Clay, Harlan, or Leslie county, then you especially should write/call and make your opinions known.

    Rep. Couch's Page @ lrc.ky.gov

    Again, please make sure your correspondence is professional and polite. The last thing we need is a bunch of idiots spamming his inbox and basically proving him right...
    --
    "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
  33. Re:What? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The answer is because they have immunity. I think the GP assumed that you knew this, since virtually all public officials have personal immunity from civil suits when acting in the performance of their duties in the U.S., outside of some fairly narrowly-defined exceptions. He was more getting into the issue of why public officials have immunity -- it's because the solution to a misbehaving politician isn't supposed to be a lawsuit, it's voting them out the next time they're up for reelection.

    Since lawsuits could be used by a powerful minority to effectively hamstring the government, producing potentially very undemocratic outcomes, there's always been a strong tendency towards limiting their use (the other big example would be the blanket prohibition on suing the government itself, except where the government itself allows it, via sovereign immunity).

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  34. Re:Why raise taxes when you can print more? by robertjw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But in an age of total fiat currency, there is little need to raise taxes. By printing more money, they've essentially raised taxes on our savings, without most people even understanding it. Most people will blame the lose of their purchasing power on the rising prices of oil or something, but that's just blaming the symptoms.

    Exactly, that's what started this whole discussion. Until there is some way to enforce some type of fiscal responsibility on the government. Government officials need to account for these grandiose schemes they have - we have to stop letting them just print/borrow money.

    If you were to add up all the taxes, fees, cost of compliance with tax laws and cost of real inflation, and spell it out for people, then you'd see that rioting in the streets you mention.
    If you could make people understand, but I don't think you ever will. I would LOVE to see a president get into office that consolidated all of the tax code into something like a flat sales tax. We have allowed lawmakers to hide tax by scattering it around and making employers and merchants pay it. Most people have no idea how much they pay, and figure if their boss pays their unemployment and social security for them it doesn't actually come out of their wages.

    Of course, everyone feels so powerless to stop it... not sure what anyone can do, but watch the meltdown.
  35. Work of Fiction by Weston+O'Reilly · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would imagine the easiest way to nullify this law, were it to pass, would be for websites to post a generic disclaimer that all comments posted are works of fiction written by the webmaster.

  36. Feel free to let Rep. Couch know what you think by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's his official web feedback form. Note that while it requires you to provide your name and address, nothing validates that those are actually your real name and address. You might want to point that out to the representative.