OT-NJ Bill to ban anonymous posts

johnmeyer wrote on 3/6/2006, 10:37 PM

Bill Bans Anonymous Posts in Internet Chat Rooms

I have never started an "OT" thread, but this struck me as something fairly important to members of this forum. This won't have any immediate impact on this particular forum, even if passed, but it will be interesting to see the response in other states.

The summary of the bill referenced in the link above is that New Jersey is considering passing a law that will make it illegal for Internet site providers to allow their users to join and post under assumed names.

I have always posted under my real name, and have never understood why anonymity has been so freely allowed all over the Internet. Most of the bad things about the Internet -- spam, kids lured into traps, scamming people out of money, rude and threatening behavior in public forums, and the feeling of alienation that often accompanies too much time on the Internet -- all could be argued to be the result of allowing anonymous behavior, which in turn promotes behavior without consequences. This in turn provides a means by which the "bad guys" can do things without the usual consequences that would accrue if we knew who they were.

Usually I can understand and appreciate both sides of any issue, but I am hard pressed to see the up-side of continuing this "tradition" on on-line anonymity. To use my British wife's favorite phrase, people would "wind their neck in" if they realized that everyone in the world would know who they are when they do something nasty or make some rude or offensive statement.

Back to post

Comments

busterkeaton wrote on 3/9/2006, 11:59 AM

So John Meyer is not a radical, but is probably a hippie? Wow.

I'd be willing to bet he did not attend Woodstock. Just on percentages, I think that's a safe bet.

RichMacDonald wrote on 3/9/2006, 12:04 PM

>Will those who have been harmed by an anonymous person or persons please raise your hand?

Since you obviously use the internet, go ahead and raise your own hand.

Denial-of-service, causing web sites to go down.
Spam traffic, slowing down all data and increasing prices for all.
A virus that hurt you, your company, or a company that you're involved with (if you did anything besides getting out of bed today, the answer is yes).

And that's the short list.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 3/9/2006, 12:21 PM

If what you're saying is that freedom of speech is an inalienable right, you are correct! However, there are those who have attempted to deny us that right and there are those today who are, albeit by subtle means, trying to obstruct that right.

Regardless of what anyone thinks or claims, it does, from time to time, require the sacrifice of lives to maintain that freedom. That is the price! Granted, if we lived in a perfect world, that would not be the case. Alas, we do not live in a perfect world. Not yet.

rustier wrote on 3/9/2006, 12:25 PM

I thought I was going to leave this alone, but I'll bite.

Okay Rich
* there is too much traffic on I95 and it makes it inefficient and dangerous - so - I motion we pass a law to ban heavy traffic. If traffic is too heavy you can't get on.

* and we all no there are stupid drivers on the road that cause accidents and kill people - so - I motion we pass a law to ban stupid drivers.

*and of course we all know some malcontent punk kid is writting those stupid viruses - or if you are a REAL conspiracy theorist you could say the antivirus companies are hiring those punk kids to write those viruses just so you'll go out and buy their "amazingly effective" antivirus - So - I motion we pass a law outlawing malcontent punk kids AND antivirus companies - kill two birds with one stone eh?

*and how about those cows dropping their manure all over the place? I understand the gasses emitted from them are seriously affecting the ozone layer. So - I motion we pass a law banning cow patties - and cows too.

I am going back to bed now . . . .z.zzzzzzz

johnmeyer wrote on 3/9/2006, 3:31 PM

And free speech not only has to be earned as he already been pointed out, it also has consequences which a lot of people seem to forget. They think "free" means free from rebuttal, reprisal, refutation, or any other consequence. Whatever you say, you'd better be prepared to take the response. If not, keep quiet. That's why anonymous speech is such a bad thing. It lets people exercise their right of free speech, without requiring them to step up to the responsibility of taking the consequences. That's a really bad idea.

johnmeyer wrote on 3/9/2006, 3:34 PM

So John Meyer is not a radical, but is probably a hippie? Wow.

I am a free radical.

(I've always liked the sound of that, even though it's a nutrition term).

Coursedesign wrote on 3/9/2006, 3:47 PM

I think there is a time and a place for pseudonymous speech, where your full name is available by court order for example.

* there is too much traffic on I95 and it makes it inefficient and dangerous - so - I motion we pass a law to ban heavy traffic. If traffic is too heavy you can't get on.

He-he, something related has already happened in Orange County south of Los Angeles. A short stump of tollroad has to adjust its tolls based on the traffic volume. The more traffic increases, the more they have to charge, by law no less.

Currently it costs a measly nine bucks in each direction during a very wide "rush hour" period!

And we already have stoplights on many freeway onramps, with the green signal duration adjusted based on traffic.