Illinois state senator pushes anti-anonymity bill

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
dailycaller.com...



A recently introduced bill in the Illinois state Senate would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online.

The bill, called the Internet Posting Removal Act, is sponsored by Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein. It states that a “>web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the 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.”

The bill, which does not ask for or clarify requirements from entities requesting the comment removal, would take effect 90 days after becoming law.

Pseudonymous and anonymous comments have long been a critical part of U.S. public discourse, though, and the bill may be on shaky legal ground.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) noted on its website that the “right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page.”

“Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the mayor’s office before going door-to-door,” wrote EFF, noting that the Supreme Court protects Internet commentary as it does pamphleteering.

The bill is part of a larger trend of lawmakers seeking to censor anonymous online speech.

Read more: dailycaller.com...




Bills such as this one, would, in my opinion, be an obvious attempt to limit free speech,only to those that readily reveal their name. Of course, the result is that politicians and government officials could then use such speech to arrest people under the guise of the Patriot Act and the NDAA, and declare such persons terrorists.
Slowly, but surely, this country is becoming a complete police state.
Will you let this happen?




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
It's like saying you can go to a bar, but outlawing the alcohol.

So much bs.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Ira's a hack. The only feather in his cap to date is some idiotic online dating thing that's just a disclaimer on sites saying "these people may not be who you think they are."

He's a hack who's basing his career on exploiting the stupidity and fear of his constituents.

Not unlike every other politician.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
It's like saying you can go to a bar, but outlawing the alcohol.

So much bs.


Heh, yeah, Here In Michigan I've seen cops sit outside the parking lots and pull people over for suspicion of DUI. So ridiculous. Anything for a buck I suppose..



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Imagine at the birth of this nation if those who wrote the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers couldn't do so anonymously with the use of a pseudonym. This bill is about as good as the one down in Georgia whining about "malicious" photoshopping....it is a sign of true fear that their grip on power and control isn't as secure as they once thought it was.
edit on 21-2-2013 by ownbestenemy because: Fixed state...



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I live in Illinois, I vote and I'm keeping track of idiots like this. But sadly, most are low information voters and have a short memory anyway.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   


But sadly, most are low information voters and have a short memory anyway.
reply to post by DAVID64
 


Very true. Low information voters are the reason we are in such a mess. The crime is that the low information voters think that the rest of us are suckers, born for one purpose, to provide them with free "stuff", at our expense. I, for one, am fed up with it, and with the government in general. I suppose that makes me an anarchist.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
What concerns me, is that this is not just one nut from Illinois doing this. As the article states:


The New York State Assembly sought the passage of a similar bill in May 2012, and Arizona lawmakers worked to ban Internet trolling altogether in April 2012. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law in May 2012, but only after the contentious language was cut. Local lawmakers took similar action in Tennessee in 2012, when the Shelby County Commission pressed for a court order to reveal the identities of online commentators who posted nearly 9,000 comments on Memphis news site, Commercial Appeal. Read more: dailycaller.com...


ibid
If one of these ever passes, more will follow, and sites like ATS will look like an Old West Ghost Town.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Imagine at the birth of this nation if those who wrote the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers couldn't do so anonymously with the use of a pseudonym. This bill is about as good as the one down in Georgia whining about "malicious" photoshopping....it is a sign of true fear that their grip on power and control isn't as secure as they once thought it was.
edit on 21-2-2013 by ownbestenemy because: Fixed state...


Absolutely. Where would we be if it hadn't been for Hamilton and Madison writing underneath the pseudonym of Publius? Not sure but am glad they did. Shameful to see how so much is requiring real names associating with any commentary when the very origins of our Constitution are rooted in the usage of anonymity. Perhaps these Congressman should actually work on the issues that are causing people to say things through anonymity as opposed to trying to eliminate the usage of pseudonyms and the inherent limitation of free speech within such a move. Would probably help their approval rating and reduce down the "unsavory" commentary.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DAVID64
 


I could see this line of thinking and procedure coming for over a year now. Many sites, such as online version of print (newspapers), are already doing something like this. In AZ, the online version of the paper, will only accept comments from those that sign up with a facebook account. No facebook login . . . no commenting. The whole reason for this tact is to be able to identify those that make inappropriate comments and inform authorities. With the facebook info . . . authorities have the ability to track down the real person (by the website's own admission).

Sure, you can make a totally fake profile, but facebook has been putting steps in place to eliminate that and it is far less common today with all of the personal info they require. With things like "catfish" and the Manti Teo saga . . . there will be a greater push to "verify" true identity by posters.

Anonymity is not a friend to oppressive gov systems . . . they will pass laws to find dissenters. Just imagine how long it would have taken to round up dissenters in Central Europe during WWII and the Soviet revolution, if they could publicly air their dissent anonymously?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Slowly pushing the limits. If they ever succeed with dismantling the Second Amendment, I've always said that the First Amendment is next...



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Well of course a politician from Illinois did that! DUH! I mean, the people of NY, California and Illinois know that there's no way that people can have freedom - they might be, you know, free and stuff! Besides, without this law, how would politicians EVER know who to put on "No fly" lists or sign up for the re-education camps!? [sarcasm filter/on]

The truth of the matter is that the politicians know full well that people are reaching the end of the line with these asshats. More and more people are waking up every single day, largely due to the proliferation of TRUTH being spread across the internet. And for a thief in the night, being exposed in the light is a very bad thing!

Anyone want to guess what happens after identities are revealed? I'll take a stab at it... Various alphabet agencies show up at your door questioning your comments posted online and threaten and intimidate you with charges if you do not cease and desist. They'll use neuro-lingual programming to scare you; terrorist, threatening, menacing etc... Effectively eliminating any ability to demand redress of grievances.

Anyone still lingering under the illusion that a.) we live in a free country, b.) the government has your best interest at heart and c.) if you haven't anything to hide there's nothing to worry about is just plain naïve or completely brain-dead! We may well be past the point of no return. The momentum of stupidity and ignorance has reached a peak!



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Sometimes I wonder how long it's going to take the government to realize... Americans will poke back. There will be a final straw. I just wish I could forsee what it will be.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Slowly pushing the limits. If they ever succeed with dismantling the Second Amendment, I've always said that the First Amendment is next...


I'd say both amendments have been at risk for some time now. Protesters in the Civil Rights Movement had fire hoses turned on them. Then there is Kent State. More recently, Occupy was a pretty clear signal that "interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances" was pretty much moot. Ironically enough, in Oregon as the site for the mall shooting featuring an AR-15, they were attempting to pass gun control legislation on assault weapons and high capacity mags. That was dropped a week or so after armed protestors surrounded the state capitol building. Go figure. The first amendment has been ripped to shreds already and it's getting worse.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Elected representatives and Congress are already empowered and should have NO fear of anyone who speaks out publically or anonymously without fear or favor.

Laws are meant to be transparent and open, and will stand by itself no matter what is thrown at it if it is honest and true in a civil discourse.

Only evil fears the dark where it hailed from, for it knows how much can be hidden in the dark. Has the Illinois senator something to hide...and fear and thus push this bill to protect himself, he who came from the dark?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   


The whole reason for this tact is to be able to identify those that make inappropriate comments and inform authorities.
reply to post by solomons path
 

Star! You are absolutely correct. In fact, last week, for the first time, I had a post I made on Facebook removed, because I criticized Obama and his policies.The post had no bad language, did not call anyone names, and merely stated my contempt for his policies that are bankrupting this country, and within 1 hour, it was removed.

So much for free speech. Facebook joins Google and GE, as corporations that contributed to Obama's campaigns and pay ZERO Federal Income Tax.

By the way, I shut down my Facebook account, as a result of it.
edit on 21-2-2013 by ProfEmeritus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


I was just moments ago putting together a thread in regard to this exact article.Fortunately I stopped myself to search before going on....This stories content concerns me a great deal and I hope everyone takes a moment to read and understands just what this could mean to our internet use and it's future...

Thank you ProfEmeritus...





tom
edit on 22-2-2013 by wutz4tom because: typo



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
The only people who should be required to fully identify themselves are government employees posting on a topic related to their position and people who receive government payments in connection with the topic.

A number of years ago, I had an experience posting a very controversial topic. There were a group of posters, who supported the government side. They were on the site 24/7 and used the typical diversion and intimidation tactics.

It eventually started to take a very scary turn. For the posters who used their real name, they called their employer. They even started intimidating me by letting me know in a cryptic way, they knew my family members and my occupation. They would ask by if I'm willing to die for my opinions. There were direct threats of being sued (even though I just commented on public newspaper articles).

Anyway, I really tried to stay out of the drama but other posters found out some posters where LE (on government time) and people who received large government payments in association with the case (services).

It was shocking really. Perfect example of government infiltrating public opinion and using intimidation.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The problem of the anti-anonymity bill is that it seeks to limit free speech.

Rational people will say that one should not be afraid when voicing out, and thus should have their real names listed.

Problem is, we do not live in a rational world or Disneyland.

Throughout the course of human civilisation, free man had sought to speak up freely, but were only cut down when it ran against the will of the rulers. It happens even today.

Look at Russia - dissidents and protestors sent to jail for 14 years. Look at Iran - hangings for speaking out. Look at China - dissidents made to disappear into the night. Look at Europe - imprison with trump up charges for speaking out ( Julian Assange). Look at Latin America ruled by cartels - you get shot.

Even USA is not spared. Emily Brockovich harassed for speaking up against corporations, and many more names intimidated for speaking out by various public and private agencies. I am sure one of the illinios democrat ex senator, who is currently charged for embezzling funds, would have prefered his crimes remained in the dark than be whistle blown to state authorities to look into the matter.

Why should a human be harassed or cut down for simply speaking out? Who does the cutting down?

Thing is, it is the ones whom are legislating the anti-anonymity bill who are doing the cutting down, either directly or indirectly. The ones whom are the real threats to freedom operate from the dark, knows the dark well and will use the light to fool freedom and truth searchers to be lured out and silenced.

We mankind are not living in disneyland today.

There will come a time when names will have to be used to get things done, but when it is unnecessary, anonymity will protect one's message, for one can only fight fire with fire, as those in power too are using the dark to achieve their agendas and aims.

If an issue is real and true, there is no lie or falsehood or halftruths that can detract it, for truths are realities and cannot be hidden or destroyed. Thus there should be no fear of lies and whatnots from others.

The only thing one has to fear is that a lie had been promoted as truth, and thus the promoters of lies would definately not want the truth to be found out, and thus will demand those who speak the truth stand in the light, not to be thanked, but to be silenced or slayed, as happened in China and repressive states.

However, for those who misuse the priviledge of anonymity such inciting hatred and murder, let us not be naive - the authorities do have the capabilities to track them down. An impartial court order is all it takes, and fully justifiable.
edit on 22-2-2013 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
The only people who should be required to fully identify themselves are government employees posting on a topic related to their position and people who receive government payments in connection with the topic.


Why? I post here under a pseudynym on topics that I am well versed in because they interest me and it helps me provide some insight to some of the inner workings. Why should I (or any other 'government' worker) not be afforded the same First Amendment protections?

I do understand what you are speaking to if you are speaking to an official capacity; in that case, we have many regulations and laws that limit and direct that type of speech.


It eventually started to take a very scary turn. For the posters who used their real name, they called their employer. They even started intimidating me by letting me know in a cryptic way, they knew my family members and my occupation. They would ask by if I'm willing to die for my opinions. There were direct threats of being sued (even though I just commented on public newspaper articles).

Anyway, I really tried to stay out of the drama but other posters found out some posters where LE (on government time) and people who received large government payments in association with the case (services).


If they were on government time (on shift or working) they probably broke many laws. I would have taken it to court. Anonymity and bullying are two different things and if you had proof of the above, you have a very strong case.


It was shocking really. Perfect example of government infiltrating public opinion and using intimidation.


Agreed but being employed by the government doesn't negate their Rights; though the above example goes beyond such.








new topics
top topics
 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join