Slashdot Mirror
Illinois Politician Wants a Kill Switch For Anonymous Speech Online
New submitter OhSoLaMeow writes with a story at The Daily Caller with unpleasant news from the Illinois state Senate, where a state senator has introduced a bill that "would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online." From the article (warning — obnoxious ads with sound): "The bill, called the Internet Posting Removal Act, is sponsored by Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein. It states that a 'web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.'"
Hardly. Unless your servers are located in Illinois the bill is meaningless.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The fact that there's even ONE politician (yeah there are more) at a state level in this country advocating for this should be setting off alarms in everyone. What the hell are these ivy league lawschool graduates being taught that makes them think like this?
How are all these treasonous socipaths getting elected anyway?
And yes, treason. Treason is betraying your country, and since your country is its collective people, betrayal of your constituents like this should be considered treason.
This bill is a direct attack on my right to free speech!!
Anonymous Coward is Senator Ira Silverstein.
I'm for this legislation if it gets rid of the "think about your breathing" shit....
What is to stop people from making up a "fake real name" and just plucking an address out of the phone book?
Will this bill require web site admins to require commentators to register with credit card number or cell phone number?
Please.
doesn't mean freedom of anonymity...
Karma: Bad
All posts to all forums should from here on in, come from Sen. Ira Silverstein. Should be easy enough to get his address, IP, and even a few other juicy details. Make all anon. posts come from this turkey and sooner or later, he'll get the point.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This legislation is too stupid to get anywhere. Move along folks...
Slashdot is not hosted in Illinois.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
http://votesmart.org/candidate/18194/ira-silverstein
Checking that page, with a guy refusing to give statement on important topics, no speeches, no nothing and still in office since 1999?! What kind of interests are behind him, considering he was an outsider when he got into office.
freenetproject.org = absolutely no one can censor (delete) anything.
Also of-course it is anonymous (more then TOR).
Downside: it's slow.
But best thing we have now for truly NO CENSORSHIP, good for online anonymity.
got 3 minutes?
For geeks only (need patience!)
- freenetproject.org grab .jar (sorry, it's java)
- java -jar thefile.jar (and -console if headless)
- http://localhost:8888/ (from separate firefox profile, block outside-localhost access by setting invalid proxy if you want, disable java/flash if you want, JS also not needed)
- in wizard set LOW or NORMAL security (you can't have HIGH unless you know >10 freeneters practically)
- later, go to Freenet Message System and install it - its 100% uncensorable board (will take hour to start up, it's normal. create id, solve captchas)
- do NOT use Freetalk (extreamly slow), but on very fast (ram/hdd=ssd) computer try Sone and WoT plugins (Twitter!)
Greetings from anons, Johny and tgs3 see you there :)
If questions ask us there and #freenet on irc2p and freenode.org
Article 11 (interstate commerce) and Amendment 1 (free speech, free association) rulez the Illinois foolz
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
If they have nothing to do except introduce bullshit bills, we should stop paying them and send them home. We could use the money to hire better teachers, fix up a crumbling bridge or something.
doesn't mean freedom of anonymity...
I don't understand why people think that anonymity is or should be an unquestionably protected given.
While I disagree with this politician's proposal, I feel like we should make it clear that not all speech should be behind an anonymous veil. It's difficult to explore and draw the line but, for instance, if you call in a bomb threat or threaten someone's life over the phone and they use the appropriate means to track you down, I don't think you should be able to say that your speech should be anonymous and by removing the anonymity you're a treasonous free speech hater. However, if I want to criticize my leaders you shouldn't be able to trace whatever communications I use to do so in order to identify me. And I think we have court systems and warrants and wiretapping laws in place (or rather we should) that make this a process that does not become abused. When your words have a large amount of weight, they shouldn't be anonymous -- I think that testifying against someone is a great example of this. Can I anonymously swear to tell the truth and call you a pedophile and will you demand that be entered into the record in a court of law?
Another recent example I can think of that annoys me is when your "anonymous free speech" is equated to hundreds of millions of dollars or campaign donations. At that point we're talking about sums that can positively or negatively affect many lives and when it hits a certain point it should simply be published. This would reduce some of the legalized bribery in this country that is parading around as "free speech."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn't actually say anything about anonymity although I understand how forcing identification could amount to fear of response and future duress. So at that point you need to involve a judge in the process of determining whether identification is needed without violating the first amendment.
My work here is dung.
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT...
This places Illinois on equal footing with Syria, China, and China. I mean that sincerely: if China were advancing this bill, there'd be a huge outcry over the obvious human rights violations.
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants government the power to register or regulate all of your speech, and the first amendment explicitly states that it can't. Why do these little dictator wanna-bes keep insisting that this time it's different?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
So here is how I see this going down. Some public figure get pissed off because some anonymous person has said they enjoy going to parties where they pretend to be a cow and get milked. The public figure uses the law to squash the anonymous posts. The person who posted it doesn't care. The public figure has taken the bait, and the information which would have remained hidden, and likely disputed on a small board, isn now national news. The poster does nothing, the post is deleted, but every search of this public figure now includes the allegation/fact that he pretends to be a cow at sex parties. What was a silly statement is a credible accusation. Why else would he take the trouble to have it removed?
The fact is that many politicians do understand the internet. One thing Obama did right is to let the birther allegations do their work on the internet until they just extinguished themselves. For most of the controversy he stayed out. Many are not so wise, engaging with the people who are just trying to get attention. Can you imagine how happy Trump would have been if the president actually acknowledged him? Ofttimes on life and online the best strategy is just to walk away.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
"No person shall be considered for any public office who cannot sign up for a free web mail account and send an email by his or her self."
That should reduce the political idiocy by a third, I hope.
It is far worse than no more ACs. This would affect anyone posting here, even under a name that has been registered for more than a decade (like mine). It would say that Ira Silverstein wants you to post your actual name and contact information so that any crackpot that takes offense at what you say can track you down and inflict harm on you.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=98&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=1614&GAID=12&SessionID=85&LegID=72466
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1874
Just another day in Paradise
We'll also have to register what we watch, read, listen to and do with a local office so we can told what were allowed.
Posts like this make me really miss(*) the GNAA trolls.
(*) For some values of "really miss".
In Soviet Russia private ownership of mimeograph machines was illegal.
Vhat a country!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Maybe one day we should propose the following amendment to the Illinois Constitution:
SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE COMPOSITION ...
(c) To be eligible to serve as a member of the General
Assembly, a person must be a United States citizen, at least
21 years old, and for the two years preceding his election or
appointment a resident of the district which he is to
represent....
Addition:
No person may be elected or appointed to the Assembly unless that
person submits proof of attendance at and successfully completing no less
than 80 Credit hours (or equivalent) in a course of study covering
Constitutional Rights of citizens, the protections of freedoms of citizens
under the Constitution of Illinois and the Constitution of the United States.
Such course must be offered at all Illinois Colleges and Universities.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Inconvenient Party affiliation omitted, twice in one day.
Back here we have a Democrat state senator Toni Harp from Connecticut trying to "Ban Kids From Using Arcade Guns." Now we have Democrat state senator Ira Silverstein of Illinois with another statist gem.
Could we please stop this game? When we're raging about Republicans there is no hesitation qualifying names with parties. I know it's inconvenient that all bad government isn't the fault of fundies, but pretending statists aren't a problem isn't helpful behavior.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
This is an excellent idea!! It's further explained in THE DICTATOR'S PRACTICAL INTERNET GUIDE TO POWER RETENTION (aka "Dictator's guide to the Internet") section 3.1, "Suppressing anonymity (who)": "There are two things that are simply not compatible with the regime you run: anonymizing tools and data-encrypting tools. With anonymizing tools, you can perhaps control and monitor internet activity, but you cannot tie this activity to a certain individual. Anonymity thus makes accountability evaporate. With data-encrypting tools, you cannot even see or make sense of the data which travels in the internet cables you control, as it is mangled specifically to avoid being recognizable. The proliferation of online political dissidence in non-democratic states is usually dependent on the availability of tools to anonymize and encrypt data. If you cannot effectively dismantle the use of these tools, it's often a matter of (short) time before political opposition organizes against you."
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Ira Silverstein, suck my balls, you dipshit tyrant.
Some days, after reading about the same type of posts from allegedly-clueless politicians over and over again, I truly wonder if we're not the ones being played here.
It feels as if they exactly know how to propose things that will set us off, and the precise language that guarantees people getting up in arms about it.
Maybe they're really the craftiest, most masterful trolls there ever was? Elevating the art of trolling to heights the kiddies cannot even dream about? At least on Slashdot, it never seems to fail either!... just an observation in passing. (I do realize that this is fantasy, and in fact this dude is probably another brick added to the 'series of tubes' wall, which has reached pretty mighty heights if I may say so myself)
Already, Facebook and Google+ forbid anonymous postings. Facebook's comment system is used all over the web, so you can't post anonymously anywhere it is found -- you can, of course, violate their terms of service and use a *false* ID, but in that case, again, you can lose your voice and your posts at any time. For that matter, if you're not a Facebook member, you can't post at all on a Facebook comment system, either within Facebook or used externally.
You're looking in the wrong place for the real threat. The government isn't (really) looking to curb anonymous speech, just this one asshat in Illinois; and his stupid little idea isn't going anywhere.
Commercial interests, however, have a huge stake in making sure they know who you are, and are well into the process of making it standard. even here on slashdot, we have numerous naive koolaid drinkers who will blithely tell you that anonymous speech is a bad thing.
Slashdot itself starts anonymous speech at a lower value than speech with an ID, a slight, but not subtle, nudge to get you to provide your information to the world. Basically for anyone who utilizes the mod system here, anonymous speech is by default invisible. No, you can't count on the mods to fix all the cases that need fixing, either -- not enough mods or modpoints.
Seriously people... you're fighting the wrong fight. 1, support anonymous speech, and 2, don't feed the trolls. Get off Facebook and Google+ until or unless they come around. Or else swallow and don't spit when they don't let you post anonymously.
Yet being an AC is okay when donating money, which the supreme court ruled equates to speech.
As a life-long citizen of Illinois, I've reached the point of saturation with the asshattery that goes on in Springfield and the true ruling city of the state, Chicago. This kind of thing simply doesn't register any attention anymore. We are numb, beaten into submission.
Amusingly, the taxpayers in the legislator's district, by majority, did indeed elect this person. Says a lot about them, too.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Dude, if a few key people didn't burn so much money partying in Dubai and Beirut and spent a little money bribing US politicians like those other guys did, there wouldn't be this Zionist rhetoric.
Now get with the ticket and send money, in truckloads, to a few politicians and get with the program, m'K?
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Cash can be subject to seizure without a warrant or other cause.
Read it and weep.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Seems to me like that describes most states. Which is why I can't fathom why anyone would want states to have more power. THESE are the type of people who would get more power. At least with the federal government, there's any level of public scrutiny. With state and local governments, no one is paying any attention.
If people started being careful with who they voted for at the state level, I'd say sure, states rights.
I like this idea, though I offer one suggestion. Just like many doctors and nurses are required to take continuing education courses to continue practicing the best medicine, I would suggest a more on-going set of yearly continuing education on constitutional rights, American history, and ethics.
He's not even bothering to say "It's to protect the children" or "Economy!"? Just straight up "Gotta limit free speech" and assume everyone is already on board?
The voters are pretty gullible. It doesn't take great salesmanship to get this through, you're just being lazy dude.
Well, maybe 80 would be too much.
Maybe 40, sounds better?
One credit hour usually means one hour a week for an academic semester, and a semester is usually around 12 to 15 weeks,
so that means 15 hours expended to earn one credit hour. Two days.
So a 40 credit hour course could be completed in 80 days.
Still too much?
How bout 20 credit hours?
The point is, we've already proven what can happen when we elect idiots, maybe we should error firmly on the other side.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
AC posts are all worthless anyway
You sort of wonder what they have to be afraid of. Mayhapsthe good Senator Ira Silverstein has more than a thin skin to worry about.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
They are a dime a dozen these days.
so y'all can say whatever the fuck you want about shitty ass Illinois.
This sounds an awful lot like the police ability to "request" Twitter and FB kill status feeds and uploaded movies and pics when the cops get out of control.
Sorry - when did we become Soviet Russia?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Lots of stuff is unconstitutional (whether by a state constitution or the US Constitution) and is still enforced; the 4th Amendment in particular has been null and void for a long time ...
Much of the second as well. That's why you can't have machine guns, silencers, short shotguns, and a number of other guns or accessories in most states and to have them where the states don't ban them you must go through major federal hoops, (fingerprints, $200 tax per item, risk of federal prison {or a shoot the dog, stomp the cat, throw the pregnant wife against the wall and make her miscarry, raid} if the BATF {thinks} your paperwork is defective or you have something you didn't tell them about).
U.S. v. Miller (1939) said the fed could tax guns that AREN'T suitable for "militia" (military) use, in particular a short barreled ("sawed-off") shotgun (because Miller and his team weren't there to "bring to judicial notice" that they were also called "trench guns" and were an important weapon in WW I). The federal and state governments have taken that to mean they can tax any gun any amount, erect arbitrarily draconian red tape barriers, then bust anyone for screwing up the red tape or failing to pay the tax - "revenuer"/"untouchables"/Waco/Ruby Ridge style.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Have gnu, will travel.
Be honest now, hasn't there been times where someone has said something to you that hurt your feelings, or they threatened you and you wished you knew where they lived?. Look at it this way, now we can hunt down the people that mark us as Troll. You can finally hunt down that Youtube user that's been saying bad things about your Mother.
Wouldn't you like that?. I know I would. But another part of me says, It's only words and if that bastard ever really wanted to throw down, I'm game. But he doesn't, he's just a Flame bait Troll that's best ignored because I have better things to do; like telling kids to get off my lawn.
Won't this require the entire internet to become 18+?
As it stands, most places that allow people to post are 13+, since that is the minimum age due to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. However, it would seem that requiring 13-17 year olds to post their real name online and confirm their personal details is a little sketchy.
> We are numb, beaten into submission.
+1
doc
Look her up ;) He reportedly did this because his brother was the publisher and wouldn't publish him if he knew it was his brother, but...
I can show you plenty, what's your point?
Speaking about anonymous contributors..... how about a filter, so anything posted anonymously is limited in size, and cannot have embedded links?
Can someone tell me when the "liberal" party became so obsessed with passing laws that tell people what they can't do (ex: buy large sodas, post anonymously on the Internet, buy scary-looking guns, etc.)
Servers are what's used to host the interweb, right? That thing were people can communicate between each other instead of watching TV news? Good ridance then! That senator probably wouldn't lost any sleep if somebody were to push the OFF switch of the internet.
I don't know why anyone with any sense would allow their kids to have their real name and faces on the internet on a easy searchable place.
It's pretty much like a pedophile menu, where he can choose the nearest kids, know where they go and what they do and do their thing easily.
.
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/20754620/2013/01/28/sergeant-was-manipulated-tampa-police-department-says
.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/lawyer-accused-in-dui-setup-says-he-will-no-longer-take-the-fifth/1274804
.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/sue-carlton-shock-jock-trial-an-insult-to-all-attorneys----and-the-public/1274939 by sending a pretty paralegal half his age into Malio's bar to lie about where she works, chat him up and buy drinks. Though he lives within walking distance, Campbell was driving her in her car when he was arrested.
How did they happen to catch him, you ask? A lawyer from the Bubba firm, Adam Filthaut, admits he called his Tampa police DUI sergeant friend to report the man at Malio's. Police are on it. Campbell is arrested a couple of hours later.
Important detail here: Paralegal, and then lawyers in her firm, are left with Campbell's briefcase containing secret court papers after he is taken away. And having opposing counsel's stuff in the middle of a trial is officially not good.
So then I hunted for "dui+sting" on your friendly neighborhood search engines and got:
This was the divorce lawyer's point of view about this bizarre case: The investigator, a former police officer, says he got two women to pose as dates for the father. The father met and drank with the women. When he got behind the wheel to drive to another bar, the investigator called police and reported a suspected drunk driver. The man was convicted of drunk driving..
http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-claims-dui-sting-child-custody-dispute-wife/story?id=14207264
.
http://www.harriscountydivorceattorneys.com/2011/08/man-blames-wife-for-plotting-dui-to-benefit-from-divorce.shtml
This feeds on itself. No one pays attention for two reasons: 1) we have a national media and its much easier and cheaper to cover stories that affect 314 million people than 13 million; 2) because the former prerogatives of the states have largely been taken over by the federal government, much of what goes on in state level politics is argument over how to deploy resources block-granted (or otherwise passed back to the states) from the federal to the state level. Most other debates cover matters of criminal law and different ways to carve out pork and patronage.
I'm a firm believer in subsidiarity, but even when things are better handled at a more local level, it is hard to convince anyone when a federal program addresses the same or a similar need. And why, I have to remind myself, should they be convinced when their taxes are already paying for the federal program?
We've never had a perfect system. One of the advantages of our current system is that most of the federal corruption occurs in the open (cf. campaign finance, lobbying, etc.). But something good has been lost since people have forgotten about reserved powers. We once had many states trying different approaches to solving many different problems. We still have many different problems. Only now are states are mainly focused on the problem of how to get and use more money from the federal government.
One way to do it - eliminate anonymous speech. Yes, there's a lot of vicious nastiness that internet tough guys and raging nerds say on the internet that they would never say in real life. But what about a whistleblower at a financial company? Or in a politician's office?
What happens if a citizen writes something unflattering about a politician and the politician decides to pursue a vendetta against the citizen? Politicians have a great deal of power to make that happen.
Anonymous speech is essential to lubricate the flow of information. It's something that leaders and marketplace gatekeepers have a hard time controlling. It undermines their authority and profit. Which is why we need it.
The thing is, even under the most suspicious of circumstances, you and your property should be deemed innocent until proven guilty. I'm telling you that so I can tell you this: If I had to bet the light bill money one way or the other, I would say Madamoiselle Beers was packing narcodollars.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
How the fuck do these psychotic dipshits ever make it into government with such a profound lack of insight? How do they not see the dangerous consequences of such ridiculous propositions?
Is it really that difficult to understand the real world analogs? Seriously, all we're asking for are the same rights and protections that the generations before us were able to take for granted, ie.:
You can send anything through the postal system without a return address and there are serious legal ramifications for anyone that opens it without specific authorization.
You can place a phone call and, with some specific exceptions, nobody can tap and listen in without a warrant (or at least that used to be the case)
They were able to enjoy protections for their communication mediums. Is it really so unreasonable for us to ask for the same thing with ours?
Oh, but wait, it's not the same because zOMG COMPUTERS!! INTERNETS!! SCARY!!
I just wrote the "senator" the following....and you all should too!
How well did you do in history class? The founding fathers feared being cut down because of their keen words in the press and hence they used pen names. Now you would like to make all their hard work and blood meaningless. You are a pathetic human being and you have no right being in any political position. I am not afraid of stating my identity, even though you would create a world in which I should be afraid! Please go away now, your services are actually hurting our country even though you are being told otherwise.
-kelly dunn
I am not afraid of saying my name, taking a position and fighting for my rights. I'm at the very top of a lot of lists I'm sure. Because if you live life to the fullest, you should be pissing off people....evil worm shit people.
YOU (I mean USA) did not become us (Russian Federation), yet. And will not, because modern Russia slides to totalitarian state much faster. For now, I am just afraid to visit half of Internet without VPN.
YOU (I mean USA) did not become us (Russian Federation), yet. And will not, because modern Russia slides to totalitarian state much faster. For now, I am just afraid to visit half of Internet without VPN.
Even VPN can be hacked.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
joe lieberman has already proven senators can have entire sites shut down for too much anonymous posting. wikileaks didnt need a kill switch.
godaddy.com, largest hosting provider in the world, has already agreed with things like SOPA and warrantless wiretapping.im sure if this senator just politely called up and asked a post or site to be taken down, godaddy would. the TOS for hostgator flat out says they can just stop providing service when and if ever they decide, and theyd never have to disclose the fact a politician wanted a site shuttered.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I want a mute switch for ignorant politicians...
Seriously? "the Internet Posting Removal Act"
What a noob!
If you want anything to get passed it has to have a catchy name.
Taking away due process? Patriot act Getting rid of unions? Right to work Molesting pregnant women? Women's right to know.
May I suggest:
Protecting Our Most Precious Ones Under Seductive Anonymous Speech Situations
To elaborate on this (more for others than you for CrimsonAvenger):
A "right", in the sense used in the constitution, is either a claim against others requiring action or inaction on their part, or a liberty to act or not on your part (which is in turn equivalent to the absence of any claim against you).
A "power" is a kind of second-order right, a right about changes in ordinary first-order rights, together with "immunities". A power is a liberty to alter first-order rights, to make different things obligatory, permissible, or impermissible, than were before; the liberty to make laws, essentially. An immunity is a claim against such action; a limitation on ability of others to pass laws governing you.
The US Constitution is formulated in a framework where by default the people have maximal immunities -- where people have whatever rights they have by nature (which are not explicitly enumerated in the original constitution), and nobody can change what rights anybody else has, i.e. nobody has any power to make laws. By the Constitution, the people of the US formally grant the US government certain limited powers to change who has what rights; to make some things forbidden or obligatory, etc.
The Bill of Rights in turn explicitly lists some specific immunities retained by the people, in the process enumerating some of the rights people are presumed to have by nature. And to cap it off it emphasizes that people still have immunities against modification of any rights not enumerated, and that the government doesn't have any powers to modify anyone's rights besides those that have been explicitly granted to it.
Together they say, in effect:
The government may pass laws governing who may do what in these specific matters. (Original constitution).
It explicitly may not pass laws governing who may do what in these other specific matters. (First eight amendments).
It may not pass laws governing who may do what in any other matters, even those not in that second list. (Ninth amendment).
It may only pass laws governing who may do what in those matters in that first list. (Tenth amendment).
It's all quite beautiful in theory. Too bad even the people responsible for implementing it don't bother to read it, or if they do, don't understand a word of it.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Addendum for a personal comment: I think all of the confusion about this could have been avoided if only the ninth and tenth amendments had been included as a preface to the whole constitution, so that that list at the end of the previous post read:
The government may not pass laws governing who may do what in any matters unless we allow it.
It may only pass laws governing who may do what in those matters in those matters we allow it.
It may pass laws governing who may do what in these specific matters.
It may not pass laws governing who may do what in these other specific matters.
So we establish right off the bat: the government is powerless except for the powers we grant it, and only has those powers that we grant it (redundant, I know, but emphasis here is important). Then we grant it these specific powers. It should be clear enough already that it doesn't have any others we haven't granted, but just to be safe: among all those others it doesn't have, it especially doesn't have these ones.
That's what the text of the constitution amounts to already, it's just apparently too obscurely put for people to understand that.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The vast majority of US politicians are attorneys. Isn't that what people generally do when they don't believe in anything and want power for its own sake? They go to law school and then run for office.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Every elected official in this country takes an oath to uphold the laws of the nation. By introducing the Internet Posting Removal Act Ira Silverstein his demonstrated his contempt for the constitution and is unfit to serve in the Illinois state senate.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Greetings and Salutations;
While I am no fan of the mindless rants and hate-filled postings that some anonymous folks post to the Internet, I believe that the value of being ABLE to post anonymously outweighs the costs. After all, what about Deep Throat? (just to name one of a long line of anonymous whistle-blowers who have provided a great service to the American public). Without the ability to post anonymously, there is a chilling effect on exposing any behavior that is ethically questionable, criminal, or generally unacceptable, especially if the subject has great power in society. Should there be limits? Yes, but, the Supreme Court has laid out some excellent and usable guidelines as to what sorts of speech are unacceptable. If the posts do not cross that line, I do not think that they should be removed.
Pleasant Dreams
Dave Mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
... silence stupid politicians like Ira Silverstein. But still, I must recognize, that even the stupid are protected by the First Amendment.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Had to be a Democrat. After the firestorm started he thought of his political future and withdrew the bill from consideration. But as others have said, it would have been rather ineffective, applying only to instate servers.
If your IP address is not accurate, then how would you have negotiated a TCP connection, much less make a post?
+= E
The only onus on proof is on the police
& the fact was they had no proof, just supposition.
That why he could've simply said "no comment" to any of those questions & no guilt is still implied.
Trolls? Nah. This is how they ask the frog how he's feeling.
Madison Avenue thought they had a flawless model of the American Consumer Brain. (On the chart, there's a large swath labeled Cheetos.) Then SOPA happened. It was supposed to sail through unopposed by anybody but disgruntled bearded people nobody listens to. Instead the Congressional switchboard went under. This was a shock. So the model must be recalibrated.
Do you think it's an accident that the text of the Illinois bill is essentially identical to the text of the New York bill? You can't introduce extra variables when you're recalibrating. ...
I should be writing a newsletter...
Anonymous Speech Online Wants a Kill Switch For Illinois Politician