Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

State Lawmaker Wants To Ban Anonymous Posting Online

Posted by Zonk on from the didn't-know-kentucky-was-so-powerful dept.

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."

32 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.

    --
    =======
    Science -- Sealed, Delivered.
    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 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/
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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!
    7. 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!
    8. 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!

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

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

    10. 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.
    11. 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
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.

      --
      Find coupons in Greeley
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

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

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

  7. 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."
  8. 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"
  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.
  10. Great Idea! by Tim+Couch · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  11. 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 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.
    2. 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?
  12. 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...
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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".