It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky Lawmaker Wants to Make Anonymous Internet Posting Illegal

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Kentucky Lawmaker Wants to Make Anonymous Internet Posting Illegal


www.wtvq.com

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.

The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars..
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
polwatchers.typepad.com
www.courier-journal.com




posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
The bill is House Bill 775. I have to wonder again why these stories don't give a person the link to the actual bill, so one can read it for themselves. That always creates suspicion on my part to watch out for media spin. Showing the actual bill is always the best policy, especially for ATS'ers who prefer to dig down to the meat of the matter and deny bias and ignorance.

And after digging, here is the link to the actual bill (unofficial, but all that was up on Kentucky's site):

www.lrc.ky.gov...


Jon Fleischaker, a Louisville attorney who represents the Kentucky Press Association, said such a law would be unconstitutional.

Besides running afoul of free speech guarantees in the First Amendment, it violates a federal law that bans states from regulating the Internet, he said. "You have a right to publish without telling people who you are," he said.

Under House Bill 775, Web site operators would be responsible for enforcing the policy and could be fined $500 for the first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense.

Fleischaker said it's become routine for legislators to sponsor bills at odds with the First Amendment. "Every session there are always issues where legislators try to bite off more than they can chew," he said.

Earlier in this session, Rep. Jim Gooch, D-Providence, filed a bill that would require cartoonists and editorial page writers to register as lobbyists. Among other things, that would ban them from the Senate and House floors, where other media members are permitted.

House Speaker Jody Richards said neither bill is likely to win passage.


Well again I have to wonder about these lawmakers spending their time trying to create legislation they already know will not likely pass. Recently I reported on another story about one attempt to pass legislation that would require food establishments to refuse service to the obese.

As to this bill, even though it is not likely to pass, it's the precedent it sets for other states to consider such legislation that really worries me. In another state, the anonymous may not fare so well in the outcome.

So what do you think? Should we have to register our real names and all contact info to post to any internet forum?

I used to think that might be a good idea- after all, it's easy to hide behind that protective veil of anonimity and say whatever you want. But with the ever present Big Brother each day infiltrating our lives to the point of driving one insane, laws like this would make it ultra easy for those wishing to silence some posters to do so. And therein comes the problem of violating or suppressing free speech. Except this time, with a simple mouse click.

If laws like this are enacted, sites such as ATS can kiss my participation goodbye. It is reasonable to assume at this point that we are already being watched for earmarking by the NWO. I sure as hell don't want to make it any easier for anyone to put my ass in a FEMA detention camp.

www.wtvq.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Here is a related story about a 2006 bill signed into law by President Bush that could see certain forms of harassment online turned into criminal behaviors.

arstechnica.com...


The 'net is alive with buzz about a new bill signed into law by President Bush that could see certain forms of harassment online turned into criminal behaviors. The bill, dubbed the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, addresses a number of major issues, but online forms of harassment are addressed in a tiny section of the bill that seeks to address "cyberstalking."

So far as I can tell, the story originated with this report at News.com by Declan McCullagh, who commonly covers the intersecting points of technology and law and/or politics. The story opens with some remarkable claims:

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

As you would expect, eyebrows across the country were raised at the prospect of good old fashioned Internet trolling and flaming becoming criminal (at least in the US), with a maximum penalty being two years in jail. Chances are, if you've read about this new law, you've read about how it criminalizes harassment online done under a false or anonymous identity. You've probably also read that this will make blogging, forum posting, and using USENET (among other things) far more dangerous because it would now be "illegal to annoy" someone, and whatnot.


Heh, harassment on ATS illegal then?



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
They must have a think tank where these people spend a couple of hours each day just thinking how to take more and more liberties away.
They want to know who is posting so they can fill those camps ASAP, because we have lost all rights to freedom of speech.
I dont care how they sugar-coat it, they want those who have awakened and know whats going on.
I better end it right here.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I better end it right here.


lol, no no sweetie, you go right on ahead...Let's hear it! I'm always curious as to what our in house resident skeptic has to say!



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Control-Freak Big Brother rears its ugly head everywhere it can, unless we stifle its repulsive outgrowth right in the beginning...by making it known. Thanks for the post.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


You're welcome. It's funny, right after reading the initial story, I thought to myself, "Betcha this guy is a republican." Sure enough.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
You're welcome. It's funny, right after reading the initial story, I thought to myself, "Betcha this guy is a republican." Sure enough.


Oh, dont make it a republican vs. democrat thing. Both of these parties have an long and extensive history of suppressing liberty.

Thats why its best to vote liberternarian



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


True. But in my own research, I'd say the Republicans have a slight edge in that race. Lol, but we are already getting off topic. My bad. 'xcuse me.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Even if this bill passed, the application of it would be pretty hard. All a forum has to do to escape this is just move hosting or server locations to outside the US. Which ultimately, would mean less tax money for the US.

Anyway, I doubt we will hear anything more about this, aside from its deathcry.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Even if this bill passed, the application of it would be pretty hard. All a forum has to do to escape this is just move hosting or server locations to outside the US. Which ultimately, would mean less tax money for the US.


Well, it's a state bill, so would only apply to those residents in Kentucky. But it poses other problems. What if you live in Michigan or w/e, and you find yourself in Kentucky to visit family. and while there you decide you want to make a post in your usual manner- without providing your real name or any contact information? Then what?



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Too many unanswered questions dealing with the specifics of the application of this law.

I think an important question to ask is, why is this bill being presented? Who does it serve and to what end?



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
I think an important question to ask is, why is this bill being presented? Who does it serve and to what end?


Well, the links I posted answer your first two questions pretty well, but to what TRUE end he is asking for this to be considered is questionable. The NWO testing the water to see what kind of reaction they get to eliminating anonymous posting? They figure they will probably see revolution upon eliminating the internet, so could they be trying the next best thing?

Tracking down users costs time and money. Imagine what they could save if everyone's real name and contact info were readily available with a click.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Great post TA.

I also am a bit at odds with myself as to whether personal ID info should be required to register and post.

Who wants this data and to what purpose? What is their gain from having access to IDs. It would severely suppress the likelihood of unfettered expression which is perhaps the motivation. The confidentiality of your political voting would seem a next logical step and the same arguments pro and con would seem to apply.

Though my pride tells me I would be glad to identify myself and defend my right to express myself, I am not naive enough to think that possible reprisals against myself or my family would not inhibit my exercise of my rights.

I have noticed that many local papers will not publish citizen editorial letters without being identified by name. In small communities like mine that is an effective deterrent to expression that has been accepted practice for years.

My preference is that identification be left as a choice to each individual and my response to those that take it upon themselves to try to impose rules and restrictions on free expression is the universal one finger salute!



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerontehe
...The confidentiality of your political voting would seem a next logical step and the same arguments pro and con would seem to apply.


Great point.


Though my pride tells me I would be glad to identify myself and defend my right to express myself, I am not naive enough to think that possible reprisals against myself or my family would not inhibit my exercise of my rights.


Bingo. Not in today's day and age, for sure, aka Big Brother Times. I feel the exact same way. I'd have no real problem divulging my identity, but the fact of the matter is with the current setup, the internet provides a way for a large amount of people to anonymously express their views. And rightly so.

You figure that the people employ the government, right? So we require as a whole that in exchange for representing us that official moves on our behalf be accountable to a real name and contact info. In contrast, the government doesn't currently require a reciprocal situation. Again rightly so, because no individual expressing an opinion anonymously is acting on behalf of the government, or consequently on behalf of the people.

But they don't like that.

Well
Too bad.

In addition, secrecy in government in a sense gives them that same anonymity. The right to claim executive privilege, national security, etc. has given many branches of government the ability to operate in complete secrecy...by LAW. The difference is that affects things on a national level.


I have noticed that many local papers will not publish citizen editorial letters without being identified by name. In small communities like mine that is an effective deterrent to expression that has been accepted practice for years.


Another good point. I have seen some papers do the same. It might be interesting to see the average response rate of these papers vs. ones where you can respond anonymously. The obvious thing to do is don't support those papers if you believe in anonymity, and do support them if you are ready to give your name and number for everything you respond to.

Who really needs for some freak to come knocking on your door to harass you over some stupid BS difference of opinion? I know I don't. In fact, on the contrary- the potential for violence "blowback" that the law could cause in itself is prohibitive.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Haha...I can't count how many times I've posted the same threads as you TA...

This is beyond hilarious. What this is designed to do is INTIMIDATE people just like us from speaking up about our completely corrupt government. It's a scare tactic to try and quiet the ever-infuriated masses.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
(pasted from the closed thread on the same topic):

i say criminalize idiot politicians who spend their time(=voters income) on stupid, unpolicable, unpopular, foolish ideas.

this guy should be forced to pay back the voters for every minute of his salary(pro-rated) that he has spent discussing this with lawyers, and for any and every penny he's forked out to lawyers, long distance phone bills, and whatnot to try and realise his totalitarian, ANTI-DEMOCRACY policy idea.

the RIGHT to anonymity is in the constitution. too bad no lawmakers, or police or military folk are willing to defend anything bu the criminals who are ignoring it.

just another degree of heat in the pot in which the frog is about to boil.

ribbit.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Kentucky Representative Tim Couch, just another one working against the people rather than for the people.

He probably got a grudge against posters in the web that has not been very nice to him.

This another example of how power is abused in this nation, not to served the people but to work against the people.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
well the pentagon did say they needed to treat the net as a enemy weapons system, is it realy any surprise they want to make it easier to identify the people using it. as if the domestic spying wasent enough lets make sure we have them to afraid to speak up. some of these new laws there trying to pass scare the crap out of me, i guess ill have to start looking in to international proxy servers.



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
So much for the state of Kentucky.
Seriously, Tim Couch should be given a drug test. He's got to be on something to propose a bill like that. You know, when I first saw the article on Rense, I thought "I bet this is another Onion article". After googling Kentuck house bills and finding it, my next thought was "That must be potent stuff he's smoking".

I can just see his next bill- All voting must be public. Voters must post their votes in public, and sign their name in blood, and stand outside the polling place, with a sign that says "I voted for ....."

It'd be funny, if it weren't so serious. Fascism is on our doorsteps.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join