New York lawmakers propose ban on anonymous online comments
Assemblyman Dean Murray introduces the Internet Protection Act with his legislative colleagues.
/ New York State AssemblyCalled the Internet Protection Act (A.8688/S.6779), the legislation would require a web site administrator to pull down anonymous comments from sites, including "social networks, blogs forums, message boards or any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages."
The bill states:
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.
Among the bills' sponsors are New York Assemblyman Dean Murray and Sen. Thomas O'Mara, who say the proposed law is to fight cyberbullying.
"Cyberbullying has become one of the great tragedies of the Internet age," O'Mara said at a press conference. "Numerous national studies tell us that upwards of 40 percent of students have experienced some form of cyberbullying at least once, and they feel helpless in the face of it. Victims of anonymous cyberbullies need protection. We're hopeful that this legislation can be helpful to the overall effort to deter and prevent anonymous criminals from hiding behind modern technology and using the Internet to bully, defame and harass their victims."
Critics of the bills claim the law will infringe upon free speech.
The proposed law raises questions over privacy and security, as well. The bill would allow website owners access to private information, like a user's home, e-mail and IP address.
A basic website can be operated by as little as one person. The bill would give that website administrator full access to private information, with no additional security provisions for users who would have to hand over their personal information.
Additionally, website administrators currently don't have to disclose their identity to users and can pay to protect their personal information from the WHOIS registry. If the legislation is enacted, the personal information exchange would be a one-way street.
Currently, no votes have been taken on the legislation.
Popular in SciTech
- Microsoft announces Xbox One
- Watch: NASA captures Okla. tornado from space Play Video
- Microsoft's new Xbox: What to expect, where to watch
- Microsoft announces Xbox One 16 Photos
- Power of Okla. tornado surpassed Hiroshima bomb
- The 7 weirdest things made by 3D printing
- Storms that spawned deadly Oklahoma tornadoes seen from space (video)
- NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400
<b>
First, as a longtime resident of New York State I would like to commend Senator O'Mara and his fellow legislators for taking action that they feel will protect New Yorkers. I would also like to thank the NY Senate for creating this website for the public to discuss proposed legislation.
It is my opinion that this bill should not be enacted into law because it violates free speech rights and is dangerously open to abuse.
I believe that the bill fails to recognize or account for the fact that speaking anonymously and critically are well-established rights protected by the <a href="http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-01/index.html" title="First Amendment Overview">First Amendment</a> and <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Article_I,_New_York_Constitution#Section_8" title="Article 1 sec 8 of the NY State Constitution">Article 1 sec 8 of the NY State Constitution</a>. "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=592414098425467641" title="Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)">Talley v. California</a>, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. 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—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society." <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3281990700387373626" title="McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)">McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com'n</a>, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995). Indeed, the NY Court of Appeals has expressly held that "crude outbursts" and speech which ordinary people find "abusive," "coarse," "insulting" and "harsh" are protected. <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12927432328831680565" title="People v. Dietze, 75 N.Y.2d 47 (1989)">People v. Dietze</a>, 75 N.Y.2d 47, 51, 54 (1989). "Speech is often 'abusive' — even vulgar, derisive, and provocative — and yet it is still protected under the State and Federal constitutional guarantees of free expression unless it is much more than that." <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12927432328831680565" title="People v. Dietze, 75 N.Y.2d 47 (1989)">Id.</a>
The bill also has an excessively broad scope that could disrupt speech all over the Internet. It targets all "web site administrators" and all "anonymous posters" without any geographic limitations. It expressly applies to all "social networks, blogs, forums, message boards or any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages" and "any individual who posts a message" on such web sites. It requires a web site administrator to remove "any comments by an anonymous poster" from their site "upon request" unless the anonymous poster "agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her name, address and IP address are accurate." There is nothing that limits when such a "request" can be made. Under the proposed law, all anyone who disagrees with what an anonymous poster says has to do to silence them or force their identification is submit a "request" that their posts be removed. Ironically, there is not even a requirement that the requester identify themselves. There is no penalty for abuse nor is there any way for a web site or anonymous speaker to challenge it. There is no timeframe to process removal requests, so apparently removals must be immediate. Worse, there is no requirement that comments be republished if an anonymous poster does identify themselves and no guidance as to how a speaker shall "attach his or her name to the post" or "confirm that his or her name, address and IP address are accurate."
In light of the fact that anonymity is often used to advocate unpopular viewpoints and ideas, this is entirely unacceptable.
I urge you to ask your staff to research the constitutional and practical issues this bill would create and, should you reach conclusions similar to what I have just stated, withdraw this bill. In the alternative, I urge you to vote "No" on this bill if it ever comes up for a vote.
anonymously to buy politicians to do your bidding but ya can't talk about all the horrible effects that has on a FREE COUNTRY anonymously. This is what the second amendment is for! Oh wait no it's not, it's for shooting black kids who scare ya.
Funny how most these laws taking fredoms away come from one side of the aisle.
It said nothing about cyberbullying "of children"--there's plenty of adults doing it too when they cannot prove their claims with actual evidence. I'm the one being silenced on one forum precisely because anonymous posters can say anything they want (like, "baby killer", implied that I'm a pedophile, that I defend convicted sexual predators, etc.) and they get away with it.
You might say, "Well, sue them for defamation of character!" I checked on that, the attorney agreed that the remarks were egregious. It was also going to cost $4,000 for the retainer and then more for the computer forensic specialist to tell the judge that we need a subpoena and court order to get the IP and email addresses.
Even when I catch the person lying through their teeth (small example: Geo. Washington designed the 1st dollar bill) the other users of the forum still give the liar credence and call me the liar.
You're correct. My bad. I guess I am so upset hearing of kids bullied so badly online they feel the need to suicide, I just naturally tie cyberbullying and kids together. Not always the case though. Thanks for pointing that out.
-Our Sheriff stole a gun from evidence
-Our Sheriff was using tax payer money to buy dinner for campaign contributors and people with ties to organized crime.
-Our Sheriff spent $90,000 or taxpayer money on BBQ grills to be used at his reelection campaign
-Our Sheriff spent $14,000 on guns for gifts to the other elected Sheriffs in Florida
-Our Sheriff is spending $6 Million per year in giving various secretaries at PBSO assigned cars to commute to and from work meanwhile having the cut the budget for officers on the road or raise property taxes.
This site is so successful because employees can come online and "blow the whistle." One PBSO LT who got fed up with it "blew the whistle" that another LT was caught stealing the pain medications from a dying man and when caught, she Sheriff ordered them not to do anything about it and sweep it under the carpet. When the identity of the leaker was found out, he was arrested on five(5) felony counts.
This is why remaining anonymous is so vitally important. The government wants to stop sights like mine so they can do whatever they want and not be found out. Don't let them. Once your anonymity is gone, you can no longer speak out without the threat or retaliation.
-Our Sheriff stole a gun from evidence
-Our Sheriff was using tax payer money to buy dinner for campaign contributors and people with ties to organized crime.
-Our Sheriff spent $90,000 or taxpayer money on BBQ grills to be used at his reelection campaign
-Our Sheriff spent $14,000 on guns for gifts to the other elected Sheriffs in Florida
-Our Sheriff is spending $6 Million per year in giving various secretaries at PBSO assigned cars to commute to and from work meanwhile having the cut the budget for officers on the road or raise property taxes.
This site is so successful because employees can come online and "blow the whistle." One PBSO LT who got fed up with it "blew the whistle" that another LT was caught stealing the pain medications from a dying man and when caught, she Sheriff ordered them not to do anything about it and sweep it under the carpet. When the identity of the leaker was found out, he was arrested on five(5) felony counts.
This is why remaining anonymous is so vitally important. The government wants to stop sights like mine so they can do whatever they want and not be found out. Don't let them. Once your anonymity is gone, you can no longer speak out without the threat or retaliation.
This has far less to do with cyberbullying of children and far more to do with silencing disparate adult viewpoints.
Make no mistake, this proposed legislation is aimed at adults audacious enough to express themselves in a direct and perhaps not so politically correct manner and is a typical sign of abusive government.
Some elected officials cannot rest until they gag anybody with the affrontary to disagree with their policies or indeed speak forthrightly or discordantly on any issue.
There are many in cyberspace whose viewpoints I disagree with and MANY who don't agree with mine. But irregardless of differences in opinion I think the one thing we can all agree on is the sanctity of free speech as a basic and cardinal cornerstone of civil freedom.
To voters who will be weighing in on this legislation I'd say to beware of those who would limit your rights to express your opinions and your access to the opinions of others. They truly see themselves as the masters of silenced slaves.
Also, at what point is "free speech" not?
and was free speech ever intended to allow harmful discourse? It's one thing to say "slavery is wrong" back in 1778 and then say "first amendment!", or pointing out to someone else why they are wrong on an issue and citing evidence to back it up... but all of that is not the same thing as constantly harassing another with derogatory words for the sole intent OF causing harm. The contextual difference is HUGE.
And what is passed under one context could be bent to fit irrelevant tangents. That's where I might agree with the "infringe upon free speech" issue.