If you’ve spent any amount of time online in the last… well, forever, you may have uncovered the core truth of the Internet: Anonymity can turn people into inconsiderate idiots. But if proposed legislation in the New York State Senate and Assembly passes, that will no longer be the case for sites based in NYC. Is this the kind of idea that will raise the level of Internet discourse, or plunge the web into a dystopian Big Brother-esque hell where no-one can say what they want?
The legislation, officially known as the Internet Protection Act, requires “a web site administrator upon request [to] remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such protestor 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,” with administrators also being required to “have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted.”
According to Republican State Assemblyman Jim Conte, who is sponsoring the legislation, the Act “seeks to combat cyber-bullying by allowing the victim of an anonymous Website posting to request that the post by removed if the anonymous source is unwilling to attach his or her name to it.” In addition to combating cyber-bullying, Conte explains, the Act will also help small business fight… well, Yelp, it seems: “The bill also prevents people from posting anonymous criticism of local businesses. Too often, rival businesses will post negative and false posts to hurt their competition. With more and more people turning to online reviews, it is important to ensure that the posted information, good or bad, is from actual customers and not rival competitors.”
But that’s not all! “Finally,” Conte explains, “the legislation will help cut down on the types of mean-spirited and baseless political attacks that add nothing to the real debate and merely seek to falsely tarnish the opponent’s reputation by using the anonymity of the Web.” The reduction in such mean anonymous attacks will, according to co-sponsor (and fellow Republican) Senator Thomas O’Mara, “help lend some accountability to the internet age.”
Unsurprisingly, not everyone agrees: “This statute would essentially destroy the ability to speak anonymously online on sites in New York,” says the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Kevin Bankston, who also points out that the Act essentially amounts to what he calls “a heckler’s veto to anybody who disagrees with or doesn’t like what an anonymous poster said.” And, somewhat ironically, an anonymous heckler’s veto – nowhere in the legislation does it require that those complaining about anonymous comments have to provide their own legal name, IP address or home address.
State Assemblyman Dean Murray (R-East Patchogue) hopes that the legislation – which has yet to be voted upon – will not only pass, but become a model for similar federal, nationwide, legislation. “There’s got to be a starting point,” he says. “If we don’t start somewhere, it’s not going to spread. A lot of times New York does lead the way for the nation.”
What should be banned in public in the world is any HOODIE, hood, hat, cap, scarf, or any item that would cover the face in public. For those idiots who think that a hoodie is a good thing, you side with the criminal element and give them another right to create their crimes. If you believe that a HOODIE or anything else that covers the face is a legitimate thing, then you are not only wrong, you SIDE WITH THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT.
OUTLAW , pass a federal law to outlaw hoodie, and all of the above that would cover faces in public. end.
Banning things like hoodies, hoods, hats, scarfs, etc… seems a little excessive, unnecessary and dictator like. I’m with Jester on this issue:
“The only reason to remove anonymity from the picture is to intimidate people from saying something that could be damaging.”
Free speech and anonymity are good things.
Graupma,
I like where you are going with this. But did you realize that people use shirt collars to cover and obscure their face as well. And I have seen people pulling up t-shirts to mimic the effects of a bandana from time to time.
So to really make this policy effective we should ban shirts of all kinds and have people just go topless. (or better yet, naked. Then we would all be able to see who everyone really is.)
I just noticed my comment was removed… wow.
Steven, did you swear? If so, the system puts it into the spam filter (WordPress CMS),
Yes i did, I wrote the “F” word as my 1st amendment for freedom of speech :)
So now you know why it was removed! ;)
and in reply I ask you WHO YOU ARE, WHERE DO YOU LIVE, and what the hell do you think you’re doing asking a question when you are probably not in the US. If you are, what are you going to do about it?
Huh? Do you have a life? Do you have a job? Did you have a job before ROMNEY ran for president. Did you know that he formed companies to do away with so many jobs you cannot imagine. I am neither republican or democrat. I just investigate stories and look for the truth. You can’t imagine how difficult it is to find out the truth about anything.
As to your question: That’s like asking are there creatures here that live among us that are from other worlds or planets. I don’t know, and I don’t care. Life is too short. Live it now, and enjoy what you have.
On my blog, I require users to leave their name. (it’s not verified, but I ask for it.) Some sites require that I authenticate with one of several methods like my google id, (DT does this) before leaving a comment. These are choices that these businesses have made as the site their content, including my comments once I click the “comment” button.
These sites should have the right to decide for themselves how or if they will require user authentication. It is a matter of free speech. But it is a matter of the site owner’s free speech that is being infringed. And I don’t think the law as described has a chance of standing up before a constitutional challenge.
As for leading the nation. Good for you. Lead the nation in driving websites and businesses that use them from your boarders! We could use the jobs out here in the rest of the country if you really feel you have too many.
first roy, you need to learn how to spell. Do you take in Boarders? I guess so. I assume you were referring to borders, yes. misspell is ok. However, it’s not ok here, because there is a spell app here that tells you if you misspell. ok? ok!!
As for your comments, I agree with you totally. Close the borders to Mexico and Canada. Mexico to keep out illegal’s, and Canada to keep out the terrorists which Canada allows into their country freely.
If we want to kill terrorists go to Canada. They are there in great numbers just waiting for the word from the allmighty terrorists of all time.
What worries me is that is where the terrorists will come from when AL QUAEDA says go burn down the US FORESTS…That alarms me.
I wouldn’t go around calling people out on spelling errors when you yourself can’t even capitalize or get basic grammar correct. Let alone the proper spelling of Al-Qaeda.
Good grief. boarders is a real word. So the “spell check app” didn’t catch it. It should have been borders, I concede that you are correct.
However, aren’t we talking about free speech? I assert my right to miss use and miss spell words as a fundamental right! I also assert my right to use excessive amounts of exclamation points!!!
And if I wish, to do so anonymously!!!!!!!!!!!
We have so many terrorists in Canada that we have special terrorist igloos built for them. Not to worry though, I will give you advanced warning when they go to attack your forests. Should you run out of wood Canada has a lot of trees, I am sure that we can spare a few for our neighbours.
Anonymity is a protection for people to say what they really think. You can say it makes people idiots, but I say it allows people to say whats on their mind without repercussions. Speech is free, and there is no recourse for speech. The only reason to remove anonymity from the picture is to intimidate people from saying something that could be damaging. Free speech is free. There is nothing that says we should know what your name is in order for you to say it.
You do have to wonder though where the limits of this freedom are and how far we are willing to let them go. Look at some of the hate posted on things like 4chan or the child pornography pages on reddit. It’s not popular to say, but there are moments where people abuse such freedoms and in my opinion (which is why I will never enter public office to decide laws) deserve a public shaming to great degrees.
It’s a very slippery slope once we go down the way of outing people online. But to say there is no recourse for free speech isn’t looking at the awful human beings out there using the internet to spew vile hatred and intimidate people behind the anonymity of the internet.
Yes, people abuse the right, but as a human right it is not up to the government to regulate it. There are very very very very few limits on free speech. If you want aonomyity to be removed from the picture, than approch those websites and have them make a policy. You don’t make a law for it. That’s the last thing you want to do.
As for the no recourse for free speech, I was more so speaking along the lines of nothing to change. There are already laws in place the help and protect people from the types of actions associated with the vile hatred speweing individuals. All this law would do is restrict people from posting what they really wanted to say. If DT was based in NYC, and this law passed. You wouldn’t see me posting on here anymore.