The decision by SCOTUS *ACTUALLY* says that the police can require you to give your name when you *ARE* suspected of a crime or wrongdoing. They can't just stop you and go "what's your name".
Also, the case had little to do with being anonymous. It was about a man who was suspected of a engaging in a domestic disturbance who refused to identify himself when stopped by police.
Your headline and description leads the reader to believe that all sorts of anonymous activity is illegal, and that is just not so.
The poor British public has been paying an exorbitant "tax" for years to pay for the Beeb, even as its quality has descended in to the latrine pit of slanted news.
So when we start listening to all this, raise a pint to our cousins across the pond!
Once again, Britain contributes rather than detracts from Western Civilization, and I thank them for it!
Slashdot Mirror
The decision by SCOTUS *ACTUALLY* says that the police can require you to give your name when you *ARE* suspected of a crime or wrongdoing. They can't just stop you and go "what's your name".
Also, the case had little to do with being anonymous. It was about a man who was suspected of a engaging in a domestic disturbance who refused to identify himself when stopped by police.
Your headline and description leads the reader to believe that all sorts of anonymous activity is illegal, and that is just not so.
You need to report this information accurately...
The poor British public has been paying an exorbitant "tax" for years to pay for the Beeb, even as its quality has descended in to the latrine pit of slanted news.
So when we start listening to all this, raise a pint to our cousins across the pond!
Once again, Britain contributes rather than detracts from Western Civilization, and I thank them for it!