Who's The Coward? Thin-Skinned NY Politicians Try To Ban Anonymous Comments

from the wow dept

Last fall, we were absolutely amazed at a paper written by some NY state politicians arguing that we have too much free speech, and that we need a "more refined" interpretation of the First Amendment, that outlaws things like "leaving improper messages on online message boards." Well... as covered by Dave Kravets at Wired, some NY state politicians have introduced the same bill, in both houses of the legislature, that would outlaw anonymous speech online. The actual bill is not particularly subtle.

It lays out the purpose front and center:
AN ACT to amend the civil rights law, in relation to protecting a person's right to know who is behind an anonymous internet posting
Most of the "bill" is definitions, but the key part is as follows -- written in all caps like a true internet troll:
A WEB SITE ADMINISTRATOR UPON REQUEST SHALL REMOVE ANY COMMENTS POSTED ON HIS OR HER WEB SITE BY AN ANONYMOUS POSTER UNLESS SUCH 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. ALL WEB SITE ADMINISTRATORS SHALL HAVE A CONTACT NUMBER OR E-MAIL ADDRESS POSTED FOR SUCH REMOVAL REQUESTS, CLEARLY VISIBLE IN ANY SECTIONS WHERE COMMENTS ARE POSTED.
This will, of course, never become law (or if it does, would never survive a Constitutional First Amendment challenge). The Supreme Court has been pretty clear:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
You would think that lawmakers would know this, but apparently their fragile egos can't take people making fun of them online.

What's amazing is that the lawmakers behind this seem oblivious to the concerns about the bill, insisting that anonymous posting can only be used for negative reasons."
Too often, online bullies hide behind their anonymity as they inflict pain. My legislation turns the spotlight on cyber-bullies by forcing them to reveal their identity or have their post removed. Once a bully is identified, steps can be taken to end the harassment. Bullying is no laughing matter. The more we can do to combat this abuse, the better off we will all be as a society.
That's from Assemblyman Jim Conte, a sponsor of the bill, who should be forced to not only read the details of the McIntyre case, but also to produce a report about the importance of anonymous speech throughout US history, starting with the Federalist Papers and moving forward from there. It's scary that these people who govern us who don't seem to understand what they're talking about.

Oh, and separately, I kicked this post off by mentioning the paper from last year. It's worth noting that these bills are not actually being brought forth by the same politicians. We have a general policy here at Techdirt where we don't mention political parties unless the party itself is key to the story. When we wrote that original comment, someone in the comments accused us of "hiding" the fact that the paper was written by Democrats. As we noted, we would have written it exactly the same way if it were written by Republicans. So, I will point out that the politicians who introduced bill in both houses in NY are... Republicans this time, which I'm only bringing up because of the contrast from last time. This isn't about parties. It's about clueless politicians, and neither mainstream party has a monopoly on (or, even, a shortage of) them.

Filed Under: anonymous comments, first amendment, jim conte, new york


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    williamwalter, 24 May 2012 @ 8:13am

    Ban anonymous cowards.

    At times I read comments from people who use very forceful words! The words are not polite, they are nasty! With that in mind, I think it's very dangerous to want to limit speech! Just what to do about it? I have replied to people who have written unpleasant things. I usually try to keep the words civil,but blunt in a safe way! Our current President is making choices I do not feel are in our countries best interest! To radicalize him with nasty words or statements without respect is wrong in my opinion! I will and have written that I do not support him in his quest for re-election! I strongly disagree with him on the things I read, relating to his plans for America! That is my right! To see things from his side is his right also! We are supposed to follow rules we have established by the Constitution and the Congresses since day one! The opinion I have of liberals is they read the Constitution in ways they feel is the only proper way to do so! That is a violation of everyone elses civil rights! The best way to contend with bullies, bad talk, etc, is to respond in public spoken,written,etc. Just keep talking and after awhile the bullies will say or do something to identify themselves! Then the public can determine who thet wish to believe, follow, condemn,ignore! It's a real anxiety prone way of exercising free speech,but like our laws,we are innocent until proven guilty! Freedom of speech used by bullies will come to light with the Public eventually! The freedoms America affords itself come with a price tag! We pay that price while relying on John Q Publics ability to see clearly! Totalitarianism is the alternative if we act too strongly on speech! The former President George W. Bush, went after Bin Laden in an open manor! I do not know if he sent a strike force to kill bin laden covertly! I hope he didn't! President Obama sent and claimed credit for sending a strike team to execute Bin Laden! They succeeded!
    I find it rather odd that the current President being a Democrat who wants peace, would use assassination, instead of talk, to heal our troubles! President Bush stikes enemies of the U.S. openly, and is criticized for it! President Obama strikes enemies of the U.S. covertly and is praised by the critics of President Bush! It seems a punch to the back of an enemies head is much honored by the Democrats; while an open challenge to our enemies, face to face, is frowned on! Our American Freedoms were established by free speech desire, amonst other things! I just don't see Democrats who claim to be fair minded, always playing/acting/living by those rules! The current death of Bin Laden says America is willing to fight with any rules needed to be safe! Well! that is opposite of what our Constitution proclaims! We fight to win with Honor, and we give our lives with Honor, when it is determined the need has arose! Congress and the Presidency with their actions,attest to the Honor, rated and earned! People used to come to America knowing: we always try to use Honor in everything! If we misused an action, we seek redress! I missed out on the civics class in High School, I was a freshman for three years and then left school!

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.