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."
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.
Send your anonymous comments to Rep. Tim Couch using his official form at http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Mailform/H090.htm
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.
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?
Because nobody would ever think of giving false information when they register, right?
- "Tim"
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.
"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/
-Ayn Rand
...
Is that seriously the main flaw you find with this law?Brian Gordon
Yes.
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.
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!
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
>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.
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".