I can't wait to see how fast this gets struck down....serious 1st amendment violations...

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills ... 327_I1.HTM

I thought it was freedom of speech, not freedom of anonymous speech.

Anyway, it makes sense, although I don't think it needs to be a law. It seems like if enough "operators of an interactive computer service" got sued, they would stop allowing anonymous posting without the law. But either way, the owner can still choose not to follow the law, it's just that they get sued instead of the person who posts.

a) You can make the argument that anonymous speech is protected, too.

b) Unfair regulation of businesses

c) Enforcement. A law that can't be enforced is a bad law.

You shouldn't have to register to speak. If you want to say something you should say it, not provide you name, address, and phone number to talk. If the forum owners want this for thier private forums, that is fine, but IMO it shouldn't be made law.

its the owners environment, so the can require it, but i agree that it shouldnt be made law; though people should have enough honor and/or balls to stand behind whatever it is they say...

a) How?
b) Why? (I don't agree or disagree)
c) It IS enforced, if you don't follow it, you can have civil suits brought against you.

1. Google was given a subpoena by the government to hand over information about what people are searching for.

2. The government would like to have everyone register their legal name and address with their internet service providers, therefore the government would know who you are by your IP and could come and find you.

3. Put 1 and 2 together and you thought China's firewall was bad?

What the? How do those in any way answer my questions?

a) You can make the argument that anonymous speech is protected, too.

b) Unfair regulation of businesses

c) Enforcement. A law that can't be enforced is a bad law.


a. It's easy. All sorts of witnesses can testify and not have to show thier face. Anybody can do that. You loose a ton of credibility, but you dont have to show your face

b. i dont know.

c. how are they going to enforce it. You have a right to privacy, thus sites cant give your information away without you saying so. also, the internet is not the US's. Other people can post. We do not control what is on it, we can regulate, but not control. this will never be able to get enforced.

a) That's not free speech... that's testifying... and you have the right to see your accuser, so that is out the window.

c) They can control all services in the US, and require them to have all people sign up no matter what country they are in.

No, you can't require everyone to give all their information - or even accurate information. You CAN require that they do that for sites that are operated within that jurisdiction. But proving the given information is accurate is quite another thing and leads to what happens with the porn industry: lots of free tidbits and then a request for credit cards that little kids just skip and move to another free website for their fix.

But really what can prove that they fill out valid information at any stage? And I believe that since this crosses state and international lines it would have to be regulated by the federal government, such as was decided by the US Supreme Court when they struck something or other down on states taxing some river around the founding of the country I believe (sry 4 years since Gov. and its late at night).

Finally, I know I read the post earlier, but what was this in response to again?

SHUTDOWN!

lol

a) I don't know much in the land of case law regarding anonymous speech. However, the argument would probably start with the idea that if anonymous speech isn't protected, then that jeopardizes free speech. In particular, anonymous speech protects people who may not fear the government but some other entity. If, say, I know my neighbor is doing something illegal, and he has the means to retaliate against me, but the government requires any statement I make to be attributable to myself, that doesn't serve anybody's interest but the guy who's breaking the law (this scenario is based on the assumption that I believe the government CAN protect me once he's in custody but not until then).

b) This will require server owners to either:
i) Pay employees to develop software to process registrations
ii) Pay employees to process registrations themselves
iii) Buy prepackaged software to process registrations

If the end result of this legislation were that 1 million kids with leukemia would magically be cured the day after passage, I might be tempted to say "tough shit" to businesses that wouldn't or couldn't cough up the money. But that's not the case; even if everything in this bill worked the way it's supposed to, all that would happen is that nobody could "speak" anonymously on any server within the State of New Jersey.

A side effect (business regulation almost always has unintended side effects; see the SUV boom in response to CAFE standards) is that potential new businesses will be reluctant to house their IT department (or whatever) in Jersey. Current businesses (ever heard of AT&T? They've got a TON of stuff in NJ) will be tempted to leave to less regulated pastures. That's all bad for NJ.

c) If I run a server here in Kansas, and somebody from Jersey posts something, am I liable? Common sense says "no way in hell", but we all know how well common sense, law, and the Internet mix in this country. Also, if all the servers leave NJ, congratulations, you've stopped nothing that you intended to.

I think the people who allow anonymous posting are already being sued, if i read it correctly.

Zkissane, they will end up trying to pay for it by selling info to private third party advertising companies...