Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Legal ramifications of anonymous posting..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    Originally posted by DirectPixel
    Jim Crow laws were passed mostly in the Southern states in order to prevent emancipated slaves from exercising their rights to vote, etc. This was not prevalent in the Northern states, who were mainly anti-slavery going into the Civil War.
    The Democratic party is the Jackson half of the original Republican party, which supported slavery. Jackson was also the person responsible for the trail of tears that many Democrats tell Republicans that they should feel responsible for, despite the fact that the Democrats' half of the original Republican party split from the original party specifically to endorse the guy who arranged for that. The Whigs (the Adams half of the original Republican party that died around 1840) were antislavery in the north, and pro-slavery in the south. After the Whig party died, the anti-slavery people formed the modern Republican party and the pro-slavery people joined the Democratic party, as it was the popular party that refused to allow morals to obstruct political decisions. Ironically, they still are.

    Edit: By the way, if anyone lives in New Jersey, please write to your state legislators asking them to shot this bill down; the last thing we need is a precedent for other states to follow.
    Last edited by Shining Arcanine; Thu 9 Mar '06, 4:14pm.

    Leave a comment:


  • RedWingFan
    replied
    Originally posted by DirectPixel
    Disallowing anonymous speech is a violation of the US constitution. There is absolutely no chance this bill will be valid.
    I'm not sure if this is true or not. I had thought it was, but my moderators were discussing this with me, and one of them (who knows legal matters and works in corporate environments) mentioned that the idea of "free" or "anonymous" speech does not apply to a forum that is owned by an individual or a company...IOW, a non-public, privately-owned enterprise. "Free speech" is supposed to give us the right to demonstrate and make our views be known in public. As a private entity, visitors agree to go by our rules.

    Just ask any forum member of ours who has had a post edited or removed: we get complaints from them that we are violating their free speech rights (as we all roll our eyes), but we kindly remind them that the forum is a private enterprise and as such, subject to the rules we put forth. We also require that forum members register before posting--by that, we are taking away some of their anonymity, and can trace them back to an IP address or e-mail address.

    Or to take this to its logical conclusion: posting on a forum is a privilege, not a right. That privilege, if abused, is taken away.

    I do not mind collecting private information, but it is impossible to enforce. Think about it: you have no idea if the owner of the forum is going to use your information to spam you, sign you up for postal mailing lists, or park outside your house and stalk you. Are you going to enter the correct information? Probably not. Using vB today, I could force visitors to give me a real name, complete street address, etc., but I cannot force them to put the correct information in, nor can I ever verify that what they enter is correct.

    That NJ bill just needs to sink without a trace. Let's hope it does!

    Leave a comment:


  • KingSpade
    replied
    In many cases, as well, if the website owner will not cooperate, the hosting provider or data center will as they too are under pressure when certain things are concerned. Not to mention, their business is at risk when they do no cooperate given a legal matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wayne Luke
    replied
    All depends on how long it takes to be challenged as well. Anyway, there isn't any such thing as anonymous posting as it is. IP Addresses can be traced, even if you use an "Anonymous" proxy. Maybe not by the site owner but give a law enforcement officer a couple of court orders and your whole life is in a folder deep in Quantico's basement.

    I always consider anything I do on the internet as private as sending a friend a postcard from a vacation spot.

    The prudent site owner will simply work with any requests that a lawyer (with court order) or law enforcement agency (with same order) asks for.

    Leave a comment:


  • andrewpfeifer
    replied
    Originally posted by Wayne Luke
    Doesn't mean it won't be passed and legislated until the Supreme Court reviews it. Many laws are passed that are Unconstitional, large portions of the Patriot Act, the new Anti-Abortion law in South Dakota, among many others. However they remain laws and on the books until invalidated by the courts.
    Many times if the laws are being challeneged in the courts the judges will stop them from going into affect while the court proceedings play out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wayne Luke
    replied
    Originally posted by DirectPixel
    Disallowing anonymous speech is a violation of the US constitution. There is absolutely no chance this bill will be valid.
    Doesn't mean it won't be passed and legislated until the Supreme Court reviews it. Many laws are passed that are Unconstitional, large portions of the Patriot Act, the new Anti-Abortion law in South Dakota, among many others. However they remain laws and on the books until invalidated by the courts.

    Leave a comment:


  • DirectPixel
    replied
    Originally posted by Shining Arcanine
    Ah yes, the Bush administration has jailed and killed every person in this country who has expressed the slightest bit of dissent, and buried them in mass graves in Washington D.C., right?


    New York and its neighboring states are run by the democrats; looking at the 160 years they were in power from 1830 to 1990 in the federal government, they are the ones who are known for passing idiotic laws (e.g. jim crow laws).
    Jim Crow laws were passed mostly in the Southern states in order to prevent emancipated slaves from exercising their rights to vote, etc. This was not prevalent in the Northern states, who were mainly anti-slavery going into the Civil War.

    Leave a comment:


  • Colin F
    replied
    If this turns into a political mess I'm going to close the thread...

    Stay on topic please.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    Originally posted by DirectPixel
    No anonymity means no chance of dissent without retribution against an oppressive government. Reason why this cannot possibly be legal.
    Ah yes, the Bush administration has jailed and killed every person in this country who has expressed the slightest bit of dissent, and buried them in mass graves in Washington D.C., right?

    Originally posted by sross
    Well I hate to be pessimistic but if this is on a republican agenda it will definitely get passed and since the repubs basically control the senate & supreme court it will not be denied by them or anyone in current government. I think this is just more big brother/big religion tactics on the way. Now anyone in a forum upset about the government or christianity will be an easy target and promptly picked up and fed-ex'd to guantanamo. Think of the hassle it will save the department of homeland defense in tracking down "traitors" who question the current administration. The constitution is a thing of the past, the Patriot act is the new constitution now.
    New York and its neighboring states are run by the democrats; looking at the 160 years they were in power from 1830 to 1990 in the federal government, they are the ones who are known for passing idiotic laws (e.g. jim crow laws).
    Last edited by Shining Arcanine; Tue 7 Mar '06, 1:31am.

    Leave a comment:


  • DirectPixel
    replied
    Originally posted by sross
    Well I hate to be pessimistic but if this is on a republican agenda it will definitely get passed and since the repubs basically control the senate & supreme court it will not be denied by them or anyone in current government. I think this is just more big brother/big religion tactics on the way. Now anyone in a forum upset about the government or christianity will be an easy target and promptly picked up and fed-ex'd to guantanamo. Think of the hassle it will save the department of homeland defense in tracking down "traitors" who question the current administration. The constitution is a thing of the past, the Patriot act is the new constitution now.
    I hate to rain on your political parade, but no matter what political party is in control here, the chances of this bill actually becoming valid law is extremely slim.

    Why? Because there is already a precedent in the Supreme Court that invalidates this bill. In order for this to become legal, you'll not only have to pass it, but also have to get the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. There is just about 0% chance the Supreme Court will do that, no matter what political party or how conservative/liberal the judges are.

    Freedom in speech has always received the highest regard when it comes to Supreme Court cases, and above all else, effort has always been made to make sure that the First Amendment cannot be infringed upon.

    Despite what the media makes it out to be, American politics is not dominated by the Patriot act.

    Leave a comment:


  • sross
    replied
    Well I hate to be pessimistic but if this is on a republican agenda it will definitely get passed and since the repubs basically control the senate & supreme court it will not be denied by them or anyone in current government. I think this is just more big brother/big religion tactics on the way. Now anyone in a forum upset about the government or christianity will be an easy target and promptly picked up and fed-ex'd to guantanamo. Think of the hassle it will save the department of homeland defense in tracking down "traitors" who question the current administration. The constitution is a thing of the past, the Patriot act is the new constitution now.

    Leave a comment:


  • DirectPixel
    replied
    This was the first case that popped up on a FindLaw search. I believe there is an earlier case that is more specific to the terms of the bill above, but I can't recall the name.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=U10296

    Quick quote regarding the reasoning:
    Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent.
    No anonymity means no chance of dissent without retribution against an oppressive government. Reason why this cannot possibly be legal.
    Last edited by DirectPixel; Mon 6 Mar '06, 5:15pm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Onimua
    replied
    Seriously.

    I mean, what about those sites with like... statistics like offtopic.com? I wouldn't want to even think about going about and doing such a thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    Originally posted by DirectPixel
    Disallowing anonymous speech is a violation of the US constitution. There is absolutely no chance this bill will be valid.
    Would you mind citing the line where anonymous speech is mentioned in the Constitution? I cannot find it:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    By the way, I think this goes too far too. There is no way the majority of forum operators could possibly have the resources to collect and verify a name and address for every single person; if this is widely adopted it would mean the end of online forums.

    Leave a comment:


  • Princeton
    replied
    no need to worry ... it won't go far LOL

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X