November 14, 2008
Earlier this year, Kentucky State Rep. Tim Couch, proposed legislation to ban anonymous messages online. The bill requires users to register their true names and addresses, the goal being to address “online bullying.”
The bill was proposed in the wake of controversy surrounding gossip sites like JuicyCampus, which allow for anonymity.
The right to speak anonymously is protected by the First Amendment, and the Kentucky proposal raises questions about the Constitution.
Comments | 12 Total
November 14, 2008 at 12:14pm by Allan Sturm
In Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets.
November 14, 2008 at 12:19pm by Brendan Collins
There's an old saying: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Well, I think this is perhaps the only case where I'd recommend the thermostat be turned down just a tad. Allan is right - handing out pamphlets is no different than standing on a streetcorner and shouting whatever you want (except for direct threats of bodily harm, which are a definite no-no). But it is this type of exception - when someone feels personally threatened - which needs to be extended to online communication. Handing out pamphlets is one thing, but there isn't an unimaginably huge database of every pamphlet ever handed out. Yet that is what we face, with Google firmly making every mention of anyone's name a permanent addition to the world wide intertubes. We can't pretend that the web isn't going to eventually be a much, much more integrated part of our lives than it is now, because the world is only going to get smaller. I don't exactly agree with Rep. Couch's approach - bullying is a small fish to fry, compared to, say, life-wrecking identity theft - but online users do deserve the right to feel unthreatened.
November 14, 2008 at 3:59pm by Bassam Sayad
As forums for the expressions of ideas, thoughts, opinions and believes, Internet message board are better served when we have the freedon not to reveal our identity. The irresponsible behavior of the few should not be a pretense to police everyone.
November 15, 2008 at 3:04am by Eugene Osei
I agree, people can always use an alias anyways!
November 15, 2008 at 6:27am by Janette Toral
Users need to take accountability and responsibility to what they post out there.
November 15, 2008 at 7:40am by Tim Tymchyshyn
how do you police that? sure I have to give my real name and address, but who is to say it is me or my address. do we have to go back to snail mail before we are allowed access to a site?
so we go to protect people from online attacks, are you gaining safety or is this world becoming a state where we always have to rely on someone else to protect us
November 15, 2008 at 12:58pm by kellie creager
If a person makes a comment on the web, it should be as if they were speaking in person, and be held accountable for: vulgar, demeaning, attacking, abusive, threatening, and sadistic comments. A coward will hide behind I.M's or Emails. “A person(coward, or any person) is not above the law, on or off the web.”
November 15, 2008 at 1:26pm by Laurie Brandt
I feel the choice should be yours as to whether you leave your name or not. Now that does not go without saying to omit ones name arouses the questions of why, but whatever. I always leave my name, it is a good way to get known and grow, so I think you should leave your name, maybe what should be banned s the content of the anoymous writer in some situations. What do others think?
Laurie Brandt
www.LaurieBrandt.com
www.YourSuccessWealth.com
November 15, 2008 at 2:54pm by Dean Stevens
This is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you're going to say something, you should stand behind it. Anonymous messages ruin civil discourse and the productive exchange of ideas. With that said, I think that legislating attribution is just stupid. Are politicians ever going to realize that the constitution places limits on their abilities to control us?
November 16, 2008 at 3:53am by Simon Synett
While I understand the argument that anonymity allows for more expression of ideas, beliefs, etc., I don't think it's conducive to truly constructive conversation. When you insist on attribution of statements, the result is that posts are better thought out. Also, when we can see an idea in context of all the other stuff written by it's author, it's far more meaningful than ideas that are thrown out anonymously.
Simply, when you post a comment, I'd like to see how it fits with everything else you say. An alias would be fine, so long as you use the same one at least on each site.
November 16, 2008 at 10:08pm by Vahe Hovhannisyan
Anonymity allows some people express their mind better.
Criminal postings, threats to security of others can be investigated by police and user can be track down by their IP addressed through their Internet Provider. Banning anonymity is way over the top for me and feels like a tight leash around ones freedom.
November 17, 2008 at 9:39am by George Donnelly
First off, what kind of bureaucracy will be required to enforce this? How much will that bureaucracy cost and who's paying for it? How much inconvenience will that cause? How much of a burden will this place on website owners? How many websites will cease to exist as a result?
Let each website owner make his or her own decision.